London Transport: Public/Private Partnership

Lord Dixon-Smith: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	By what date they expect the public/private partnership for London Transport to be implemented.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I understand that London Transport is aiming to have completed all three public/private partnership competitions by the autumn. The board of London Transport yesterday selected preferred bidders for the two deep tube contracts. The preferred bidder for the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly Lines infrastructure company is Tube Lines. The preferred bidder for the Bakerloo, Central and Victoria Lines infrastructure company is Metronet. London Transport expects to select a preferred bidder for the sub-surface lines contract in the summer.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, which takes us forward. He will forgive me if I say that it is not as interesting as the answer that he might have given to a much more important question that we might have been considering on this day.
	It is a matter of regret that London has ceased to hold its breath waiting for a conclusion to this development in its transport system. What contingency plan do the Government have in the event that the judicial review that was initiated by Transport for London and the mayor is successful?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Government are confident that the PPP will be the best deal for Londoners and that it will bring us a modern, safe and reliable tube. The Government are not party to the legal action that is currently taking place and I shall refrain from commenting on it.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, could the Minister indicate the extent to which, under the PPP arrangements, there will be a unified management structure, particularly in relation to the important issue of safety?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we believe that the PPP will maintain and improve safety. It must satisfy the rigorous safety checks of the independent Health and Safety Executive. The two preferred bidders for the infrastructure companies are in place and it will be evident to noble Lords that they share our concern for safety on the Underground.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, could the Minister help the House by illustrating the way in which the divided management structures will work and could he explain how many separate track and train operating companies will work simultaneously in the Waterloo Station complex when the plans are fully under way?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure from all the evidence that is available, some of which has been circulated to noble Lords and others, that the infrastructure companies, when they are in place, will still have a positive relationship with the publicly owned operating company and London Underground. It will simply be part of the good running of the tube for the infrastructure companies and London Underground management to ensure that the most practical and sensible operations are in hand.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the commitment reported in today's Daily Telegraph by Iain Coucher, the chief executive of Tube Lines, to,
	"spend £2 billion on capital improvements over the first seven years",
	is very good news for Londoners and that, so long as that promise is held to, it will provide a complete answer to the criticisms of the Government's approach made by the mayor of London and Mr Kiley?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am delighted by the positive statements that have been made by the two preferred bidders. They include some of our best companies in the construction and transport industries in the United Kingdom. I should stress that London Underground has a very good safety record. The PPP would go ahead only when the safety arrangements were accepted by the independent HSE. In terms of accidental passenger fatalities, which were measured by an independent international study, London Underground is twice as safe as the system in Paris and four times as safe as that in New York.

Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister ask his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister not to denigrate again the sincerity of those who question the safety of the proposed arrangements under the PPP? I am aware that the Minister believes that view to be mistaken, but that does not give him or his right honourable friend the entitlement to question the sincerity of those who hold it. Will he please take on board the impression that that approach gives to voters and, within this House, to non-voters as well?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, neither my right honourable friend nor I wish to impugn anyone's motives. We can, however, in all propriety dispute some of the alarming statements that have been made about the intentions of the Government, London Underground management and, now, the preferred bidders. I assure noble Lords, as I have done frequently, that safety is the highest priority for all concerned.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the Government publish the financial details of those transactions, which would indicate to the public, who have an interest in this matter, why the Government are pursuing the PPP, which pays rather more and is more economic generally to the taxpayer than other possible solutions that may commend themselves?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Government have invested an average of £530 million a year in the core underground network. We should compare that with the £395 million over the lifetime of the previous Government. I also make it clear that the National Audit Office praised London Underground for the extremely thorough job that it did estimating the costs of the public sector comparator and the bids.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred obliquely to the welcome decision by the RMT to call off today's tube strike. Will the Minister pay tribute to the role played by John Monks and the TUC in persuading the RMT executive to change its mind at the 11th hour? Does he agree that that was in marked contrast to the attitude shown by the mayor of London?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is excellent news that the strike by the RMT has been called off. I welcome the role played by John Monks and the TUC in achieving that. I do not think that that strike action is justified. Along with my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I urge the RMT to call off the threat of future strikes.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister explain why they were not successful with South West Trains? Moreover, surely the strike was not called off; it was simply postponed.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I will not engage in the semantics of the situation. Yesterday's strike was called off, but we are told that another strike is planned for 15th May. I am sure that the TUC, under John Monks and his colleagues, will do everything in its power to ensure that that strike, too, is called off. I am sure that it is a matter of regret to all of us that a similar decision was not made in relation to the dispute on our railways. I am also sure that the enduring good sense of the TUC will play a part in that regard in future.

Millennium Dome: Market Testing

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the result of the market testing carried out in relation to the sale of the Millennium Dome will be known.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as was announced to Parliament on 26th April, English Partnerships has received more than 100 informal expressions of interest for the Dome and the development of other parts of the Greenwich peninsula during and since the Legacy negotiations. The Government are looking at these, and, in parallel, testing the market for other interest in using the Dome. Discussions with a number of key organisations are focused at this stage on a small number of potential uses and will take several weeks to complete.
	It would not be appropriate for me at this stage to disclose more details. Once the market testing has been completed and properly considered, we will announce details of the future process.
	The process being followed is consistent with professional advice and with the aim of securing an appropriate use for the Dome, which contributes towards the long-term regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. We expect a buyer to emerge during the course of this year.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for reading out his Written Answer of last week. Will he share with noble Lords the advice the Government received on the difference in value between the sale of the Millennium Dome site with and without the Dome structure? If he finds precision difficult to the nearest £10 million, will he explain on what basis,
	"the Government are keen to preserve the benefits of this magnificent structure"?--[Official Report, 26/4/01; col. WA232.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the decision to keep the Dome was based upon studies made which indicated that in terms of value for money that was the sensible course. It is not possible at this stage to give a detailed comparison because we do not know what the precise level of the bids will be. I do not believe there is any doubt but that there have been substantial regenerative benefits from having the Dome--sweeping environmental and other improvements, including a new ecologically based river terrace and flood defence for Greenwich; the Greenwich Millennium Village; a 162-bed hotel; a state-of-the-art cinema complex; a new primary school; a brand new health centre expected to open soon; major retail outlets; new roads; new drains and other servicing on a grand scale; and an estimate by the London Borough of Greenwich of 30,000 jobs within the next few years. I regard those as benefits well worth fighting for.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell us what markets the Government are testing? Will he also confirm that he has not ruled out the possibility of keeping the Dome in public hands and renting it out thereafter?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, our intention is to find a buyer for the Dome. We are testing the markets where people may be interested in buying the Dome.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the current cost of maintaining the Dome as it stands and does he feel that that represents good value for money?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is £600,000 a month.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, many in the House will know my background in local government. Therefore, while I appreciate the national interest in the site, can the Minister tell us whether the local authority and the people of Greenwich made their views known as to what they would like to see happen to the site?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the local authority and the people of Greenwich are clear in their view that the Dome should stay. They regard it as something that has had a transforming effect on the area. As everybody in the House knows, before the Dome came the peninsula was derelict and unusable as a result of contamination caused by the British Gas plant. The coming of the Dome, decided upon by the previous administration, led to 300 acres of what was unusable land being made usable. That has had a transforming effect on the area and the local community is very pleased with the result.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the last time I asked this question the Minister said that the suggestion was one of the options being considered. Why cannot the Dome be used as an indoor, all-sports arena which could incorporate boxing, swimming and track? That would make it invaluable for a future Commonwealth Games and of great use if there was a bid for the Olympics.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I indicated, the market is being tested. It is for the market to come forward and for us to discuss with the market the things that can be done with the Dome.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the Minister's remarks. I have the greatest difficulty in deciding whether or not the Dome is really for sale. What does the "market testing" consist of? The most interesting thing I heard the Minister say was, "We are waiting for buyers to emerge". Can we have more clarity as to whether the Dome is for sale and, if so, on what basis?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I hoped I had explained both in the Written Answer and again today. On the advice of people who sell property, experts in the sale of property are approaching people who may be interested in buying the Dome. They are having discussions as to what they see as the best way to market the Dome and what its specific uses may be. That is consistent with the professional advice we received.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, has my noble and learned friend had the pleasure, as I had today, of travelling from the Dome to your Lordships' House by the wonderful Jubilee Line which was provided for us in that part of London? As the housing to which my noble and learned friend referred earlier has been described as "fit for kings and queens", does he agree that if any noble Lords are looking for a home in London, Greenwich would be a wonderful place for them to settle? Within 20 minutes they can travel from the Dome straight to your Lordships' House.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have not had the pleasure of that journey today, but I have had the pleasure on many previous occasions. I know that many other Members of your Lordships' House have had the same pleasure, indeed they have had that pleasure with me on a number of occasions. All have told me what a good trip it is from the Dome to the Lords and from the Lords to the Dome.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, can the Minister answer the Question of my noble friend Lady Noakes? He kindly read out a Written Answer. He may not have noticed that my noble friend had changed her Question today. When is the market testing to be concluded? Or have the Government let the companies have an open contract?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I answered the Question. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated, she had read the Written Answer I gave on Thursday of last week which said that the Government were looking at options and in parallel testing the market for others interested in using the Dome. Discussions with a number of key organisations are focused at this stage on a small number of potential users and will take several weeks to complete.

Home Detention Curfew Scheme

Lord Cope of Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many prisoners have been released on the home detention curfew scheme since its introduction.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as of 31st March 2001, 33,737 prisoners have been released from prison on the home detention curfew scheme which came into force in January 1999.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We have long had a certain amount of remission for good conduct, but we have now reached the position where somebody sentenced to six months in prison actually serves six weeks. How will that help with either punishment or rehabilitation?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, home detention curfews provide selected, short-term prisoners with a monitored return to the community. That was designed as part of the original trial periods set out by the last government back in 1995-96 when pilots were undertaken. I presume the noble Lord was then happy with the scheme since it was his party in government which trialled it. At that stage it had a success rate of 82 per cent. Since we have been in government, the success rate of HDC has reached 94 per cent.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, given the success of the home detention curfew, should not Her Majesty's Government promote a greater use of the curfew with electronic tagging and monitoring as a court sentence? In that way, many more non-violent offenders need not be sent to prison and therefore the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would be better answered.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at present only around 30 per cent of those who may be eligible for HDC are placed on HDC. The Government took a cautious approach. We are dealing with the important matter of public safety. In those circumstances it is right to proceed cautiously. The scheme has been very successful and certainly the Home Affairs Select Committee endorsed that view in its report Alternatives to Custody, which members of Her Majesty's Opposition signed up to back in 1998.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that many civilised countries manage to maintain public safety without keeping such a high proportion of their citizenry in prison? Instead of imagining that building more prisons and sending more people to prison is necessarily the answer to crime and punishment, should not we be experimenting still further with alternatives to prison?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we share that common objective. However, public protection is paramount. We have introduced a number of measures in legislation which provide alternatives to prison. That was precisely the purpose of the last piece of legislation which we put through Parliament in the last Session, and which was welcomed in those terms. We want to see a variety of penalties used, not just custody. With the new Probation Service up and running, I believe that we can have great confidence in the future of that approach.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, of the 33,000 prisoners released under the scheme, can the Minister say how many have subsequently been confined to prison?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as of 31st March this year, recalls made on the grounds of breach of curfew, including tampering with the equipment, numbered 1,050. Recalls made on the grounds of inability to monitor, through no fault of the curfewee, numbered 465. As I said at the outset, the success rate is 94 per cent, which is an impressive statistic.

Lord Elton: My Lords, is it the case that between January 1999 and March of this year, 67 people convicted of manslaughter, eight of attempted murder, and 4,443 of wounding, aggravated bodily harm and grievous bodily harm were all released on tagging under this system, of whom 119 re-offended with the same offence? How does that square with the Statement given by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons in November 1999, in which he said:
	"We have no plans or intention whatever to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. Let me make that clear, with a full stop--none whatever"?
	What is a serious offence under his definition?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a matter of terrible public regret if anybody released under the home detention curfew scheme commits an offence, perhaps one similar to that for which they are in prison. I cannot accept the noble Lord's analysis or interpretation. It is the case that when in government his own party effectively introduced through the Criminal Justice Act 1991 an early release scheme by remitting 50 per cent of the length of the sentence. Approximately 90,000 prisoners, mostly short term, are released from prison every year under arrangements laid down by the previous government. The bonus and benefit of home detention curfew, a scheme which we have attempted to perfect, is that those who are released up to two months before the end of their sentence are fully and properly monitored. I believe that that gives us far greater control over those former prisoners.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House anything about the reconviction rates of persons released on HDC compared to others who have committed similar offences and served their full terms?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Home Office research suggests that only 2.1 per cent of curfewees were reconvicted for offences committed during the curfew period which can last up to two months. Only 10.2 per cent had reoffended, including offences committed during the HDC period, up to six months after their normal release date, compared to--this is the key statistic--40.5 per cent of those who were eligible but not granted home detention curfew. That shows that the risk assessment procedures, which have been adopted to determine who should get HDC, are working extremely well.

Virgin Trains: Fares

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What discussions they have had with Virgin Trains in relation to its intention to increase rail fares.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we made clear that we found the intention by Virgin Trains to increase rail fares regrettable. We asked the Strategic Rail Authority to meet Virgin Trains to express Ministers' concerns, which they did on 12th April.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, in view of the increase in rail fares by Virgin Trains of almost 10 per cent, can my noble friend tell the House whether an assurance was received by him from Sir Richard Branson and Virgin that they would not continue to exercise a monopoly position on the West Coast Main Line or continue to increase fares well beyond inflation, thereby inflicting further suffering on customers on that line?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Strategic Rail Authority expressed its disappointment at the magnitude of the proposed increases and its concern that that would not assist the drive to encourage passengers to use the railway. The Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin Trains agreed that more effort had to be put into communicating to passengers details of cheap fares so that they clearly understood the alternative offers available. Virgin will proceed with the proposed increases, which are permissible under the franchise agreement.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as the Government are putting over £6 billion into the West Coast Main Line, on which Virgin Trains operate, that it would be reasonable for them to have some control over the fares paid by the taxpayer for using that line?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, there are legally-binding contracts between the Strategic Rail Authority and the train operating companies which limit increases on regulated fares. The cap on such fares is RPI inflation minus 1 per cent. The 60 per cent of unregulated fares have not increased above inflation over the past three years. We have here an unfortunate example of a standard open return ticket which Virgin has increased by 70 per cent. To put that in perspective, on other regulated fares there has been a fall in real terms of 18 per cent over the period. The difference is contained in a market strategy.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House the factors which the Government would take into account, apart from the question of affordability, in deciding whether to extend the scope of fares regulation?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am in the ironic position of being asked a question by a member of the Strategic Rail Authority on whose advice I would depend for the answer. I imagine that the Strategic Rail Authority will associate the need for a clearer outline of fare options with whatever new franchising proposals it is judging. No doubt future franchising agreements will reflect what success that has.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, much of the income of Virgin Trains is derived from train fares paid by warrants through government departments. Many of those are for first-class tickets. I declare an interest in that the Lord Chancellor pays my train fare on a regular basis. Why have not the Government negotiated with Virgin for senior citizens such as me to charge to the Government the equivalent of a senior citizen's fare rather than the full fare? In my case the difference in fare is between £139 and £93. Overall, that is a substantial amount.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I shall certainly look further into that matter! There are concessionary rail cards for young persons, as well as senior citizens and the disabled, which are protected. There are others, such as the Network Card, of which the noble Baroness may be aware, which are offered on a voluntary basis. I shall certainly consider whether we can allow everyone the advantages which clearly the Lord Chancellor affords.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that Virgin Train fares are probably the highest in the world charged by any railway company; that the service must be one of the worst; that even if there are cheap fares on special offer it is virtually a lottery to try to discover whether they exist, when they exist and how to acquire them, and that the whole situation is a shambles?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the House will not be surprised to hear that it is virtually impossible to draw international comparisons of the cost of rail journeys. United Kingdom train operators offer a wide range of standard and discounted rail tickets. Discount tickets are not so widely available in other countries, where fares are typically based on a simple price-per-kilometre basis.
	After Questions today, I have a meeting during which I look forward to hearing from the rail industry that 98 per cent of services are scheduled as normal and that 82 per cent of those are running punctually as against 86 per cent before Hatfield.

Standing Orders (Private Business)

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. With your Lordships' permission, I shall move all the amendments together. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not in his place and therefore I shall not need to write to him on this occasion. The 12 amendments broadly speaking fall into three categories. First, Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 relate to human rights. As they are of particular importance, I hope that the House will allow me a little time to explain--although I hope that it does not take as long as it did on Monday.
	Section 19(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires Ministers of the Crown to make statements to Parliament as to whether in their opinion public Bills are compatible with convention rights, but there is no equivalent provision for Private Bills. The absence of such a provision has been a matter of concern to some Members of Parliament and as a result most Private Bills in the House of Commons were blocked in the last Session.
	From the start of the present Session, the parliamentary agents who act for the promoters of Private Bills have agreed to provide a statement of opinion on behalf of the promoters. That has already been done for this Session's two new Private Bills. The third amendment I am moving today embodies that in an amendment to Private Business Standing Orders.
	However, those who have been concerned about the matter have been anxious that the Government should express their own opinion as to the compatibility of Bills with the convention rights. That has been discussed by Ministers and officials at some length over the past 18 months and the Government have agreed to report on the statement of opinion by the promoters. The sixth amendment is intended to enshrine that in Standing Orders. The other amendments relating to human rights are subsidiary to the sixth amendment.
	It may be helpful if I were to inform the House that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has agreed to this approach and the amendments have been agreed by the Private Bill Offices of both Houses and discussed extensively with the Government and with parliamentary agents. The proposed procedure would not require the Joint Committee on Human Rights to consider Private Bills but would facilitate such consideration if it chose to do so.
	Amendment No. 7 relates to reports by Ministers of the Crown. It brings us helpfully into line with the House of Commons Private Business Standing Orders on this issue and Amendment No. 1 provides a definition of "Minister of the Crown", which will apply to all Standing Orders.
	Thirdly, Amendment No. 2 to Standing Order 27 is needed to correct a printing error in the current text.
	Finally, when I moved a substantial number of amendments to Private Business Standing Orders in March, I informed your Lordships that it is intended shortly to publish a new edition of the House of Lords Private Business Standing Orders which would not only include the amendments but would also incorporate some stylistic changes to make them easier to read and use. Having now seen these changes, most of which are matters of paragraphing and none of which alter the substance of the Standing Orders in any way, I considered that the amendments to Standing Order 167, numbered 9 to 12, should be moved formally on the Floor of the House.
	As I understand it, these do not change the substance of Standing Order 167 in any way, but simply reflect modern legislative drafting practice, which is to refer to individuals under the age of 18 as "minors" rather than "infants". I have a teenage granddaughter and I know that to refer to her as an infant would be to cause a riot!
	I hope that the House will therefore agree to these drafting amendments and will support my request that they should also agree that the Standing Orders should be reprinted as amended with the incorporation of a number of stylistic changes. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to private business be amended, with effect from 27th November 2001, as follows:
	Amendment No.
	Standing Order 1
	1. Line 46, at end insert--
	""minister of the Crown" means the holder of an office in Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and includes the Treasury;"
	Standing Order 27
	2. Line 52, leave out from "borough, or" to "and if" in line 53 and insert "(in Wales) of the county or county borough or (in Scotland) of the local government area"
	Standing Order 38
	3. Line 13, at end insert--
	"(2A) The printed memorandum shall include a statement of opinion, by or on behalf of the promoters, as to the compatibility of the provisions of the bill with the Convention rights (as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998)."
	Standing Order 39
	4. Line 7, after "Treasury," insert "the Privy Council Office,"
	Standing Order 91
	5. Line 5, at end insert--
	"(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1) of this standing order, where in the case of a private bill which has been read a first time no report from a minister of the Crown has been presented to the House under Standing Order 98A, the Chairman of Committees may, if he thinks fit, direct the attention of the House to that fact."
	After Standing Order 98
	6. Insert the following new Standing Order--
	"Reports concerning human rights.
	98A. In the case of a private bill originating in this House or brought from the House of Commons, a report from a minister of the Crown on the statement of opinion required by Standing Order 38(2A) shall be presented to the House (by being deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments) not later than the second sitting day after that on which the bill was read a first time."
	Standing Order 127
	7. Leave out Standing Order 127 and insert--
	"Reports by ministers of the Crown.
	127.--(1) All reports on a private bill, or its objects, which are--
	(a) made by a minister of the Crown; and
	(b) presented to the House by being deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments,
	shall stand referred to the committee on the bill.
	(2) Where a recommendation is made in any such report, the committee--
	(a) may, if they think fit, hear an officer of the minister in explanation of the recommendation; and
	(b) shall note the recommendation in their report and, if they do not agree to it, shall state their reasons for dissenting."
	Standing Order 142
	8. Line 15, at end insert "(by being deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments)."
	Standing Order 167
	9. Line 2, leave out "(hereinafter referred to as an infant)" and insert "(in this order referred to as a minor)."
	10. Line 5, leave out "such infant" and insert "the minor."
	11. Line 8, leave out "such infant" and insert "the minor."
	12. Line 13, leave out "infants" and insert "minors."-- (The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question of clarification about Amendment No. 6. It relates to a Minister of the Crown giving an opinion about the Human Rights aspect of a Private Bill. Using one's common sense, I assume as a matter of practice that if a Minister of the Crown thought that a Bill infringed human rights it would not come forward. However, I understood the Chairman of Committees to have said that the Joint Committee on Human Rights would have no status in this matter.
	Let us suppose that the Minister has said, "No, there is no human rights infringement", and, the Joint Committee not being involved, a Member of your Lordships' House on examining such a Private Bill said, "I believe that there is an infringement of human rights here". Would he or she automatically be ruled out of order on the question of human rights or is it a matter that a noble Lord could raise in relation to a Private Bill?

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, further to that matter, in this day and age I readily understand why the promoters are expected to sign a certificate stating that the Private Bill in question is compatible with the human rights legislation. However, I do not understand why on earth the Government should insist--and I understand from the Chairman of Committees that the Government have insisted--that we have Amendment No. 6 before us. What will happen will be that the Minister of the Crown will second guess the promoters, possibly without any real knowledge of the matter in question.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, the Joint Committee can examine the statement. Indeed, I made that clear in my previous remarks. I said that the proposed procedure would not require the Joint Committee to consider Private Bills but would facilitate such consideration if it chose to do so. Therefore it is able to do so and presumably an objection from a noble Lord might well refer that matter back to the Joint Committee in certain circumstances. If I am wrong about that, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
	As regards the Government's position, the fact is that, like all legislation, an Act coming from the passage of such a Bill can be challenged and judged in the courts both in the United Kingdom and Strasbourg. At that point, the Government might have some standing in it and it is therefore felt wise that they should make a statement before the matter gets to that stage. I commend the Motion to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Culture and Recreation Bill [H.L.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Culture and Recreation Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clause 1,
	Schedule 1,
	Clauses 2 to 25,
	Schedule 2,
	Clauses 26 to 33,
	Schedule 3,
	Clauses 34 and 35,
	Schedule 4,
	Clauses 36 to 38,
	Schedule 5,
	Clauses 39 to 44,
	Schedule 6,
	Clauses 45 to 50,
	Schedule 7,
	Clauses 51 and 52.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the foot and mouth outbreak. This is the 10th time I have updated the House on the outbreak. Once again, I would like to provide details of the latest position on the disease, set out the measures the Government are taking and give right honourable and honourable Members the opportunity to raise points with me.
	"As of midday today, there had been 1,537 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease in Great Britain. Since I spoke to the House last week, the average number of cases per day has fallen further, from 16 in the week ending 22nd April, to 11 in the week ending 29th April. This continues the decline of the disease from the highest point of 43 cases per day in the week ending 1st April.
	"Over 1.4 million animals have now been slaughtered for disease control purposes. A further 630,000 animals have been slaughtered under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. Perhaps I may remind the House that in the 1967 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which lasted for over seven months, only 434,000 animals were slaughtered in total. The current outbreak is, as I have said before, unprecedented in scale and in the speed at which it spread.
	"There is no longer any backlog of animals awaiting disposal anywhere in Great Britain. The disposal backlog in Devon to which I referred last week will have been cleared by the end of today. There are small numbers of animals awaiting slaughter but the position has improved greatly over the past few weeks. This achievement is the result of a concerted effort over the past few days and weeks, using all disposal methods--rendering, burning, incinerating, landfill and burial--according to need and as appropriate in the local circumstances.
	"We have been able to lift restrictions in 10 different areas where there have been no new cases for 30 days and thorough veterinary and serological testing has taken place. Some 16,000 farms have now benefited from the lifting of the tighter movement restrictions associated with infected areas. This represents about 13 per cent of the number of farms which were ever restricted.
	"We can therefore be optimistic about the future course of the disease, although the epidemiologists warn us that cases will continue to occur for some time yet. What is clear is that our policy was the right one: to bear down on the outbreak swiftly and prevent greater spread of the disease by rapid slaughtering within 24 hours of the report of a new case, and tracing dangerous contacts and tackling the disease on contiguous premises within 48 hours. This has been crucial to the control of the epidemic.
	"Last week I was able to announce to the House a broadening of the existing areas of discretion for local veterinary judgment in relation to culling on a neighbouring farm. This has provided some relief from automatic slaughter of cattle and has been generally welcomed by farmers, as has the move towards making special arrangements for rare breeds of sheep and hefted flocks.
	"It remains the position that the necessary support among farmers, consumers and the food industry for a vaccination programme in Cumbria and possibly Devon has not been forthcoming, and I cannot see that situation changing now, given the decline in the number of daily confirmed cases. Contingency plans remain in place for the rapid introduction of a vaccination programme should the situation change.
	"I announced last week a number of ways in which we have re-established routes for healthy livestock to be sold into the food chain. I am pleased to say that we are now issuing instructions to veterinary staff so that they can issue licences which will allow healthy stock from premises within three kilometres of an infected place, after a period of time, to move to slaughter and use in the human food chain. Farmers who wish to take advantage of this should contact their local animal health offices. The livestock welfare disposal scheme remains open to anyone who can demonstrate a real welfare problem that cannot be addressed another way. My right honourable friend Lady Hayman will be meeting farming organisations tomorrow to review the operation of the scheme and its future.
	"The Government also want to do something to help with welfare problems on farms in infected areas which cannot move animals because of the local intensity of FMD cases. I therefore propose to ask our veterinary staff to examine these problems on a case-by-case basis and to permit movements on farms provided that the fight against FMD is not compromised. The most common problem which this change will address will be where animals are not able to cross public roads to fresh grazing. The change will be introduced by the middle of next week at the latest.
	"We continue to pay large sums in compensation and other payments to farmers resulting from the foot and mouth outbreak. We have already paid over £100 million in compensation, and the latest estimate is that this figure will eventually be over £600 million. The livestock welfare disposal scheme is expected to provide more than £200 million. This is all in addition to the £156 million being paid in agrimonetary compensation to livestock farmers and all the other funding that the Government are providing to support the rural economy and the tourist industry more generally. We are in discussion with the devolved administrations and the farming unions about a longer-term recovery plan.
	"The Government have also taken steps to safeguard farmers' entitlements to CAP payments. Following consultation with the farming unions, the deadline for submitting IACS forms will remain 15th May. However, we have agreed with the European Commission that it will amend its rules on changes that may be made to IACS forms after 15th May. This flexibility will make it easier for farmers to adjust their claims to take account of individual circumstances. My department has written to all IACS applicants to give them full details of the flexibilities that we have secured and the procedures to follow. Farmers whose cattle or sheep have been culled and who are currently unsure as to their future prospects should take steps to safeguard their entitlement to future subsidy, if and when they decide to restock their farms. This means that they should submit an IACS form in the normal way by 15th May. Where appropriate, they should also tick the boxes on the form for hill farming allowances and extensification premium.
	"When I reported to the House on 27th March, I drew attention to the need to enforce the rules of commercial and personal imports of meat and meat products into the United Kingdom. I should now like to inform the House of the steps that the Government have taken, and are taking, in this context. The control of meat and meat product imports into this country involves the inspection of commercial imports at border inspection posts, effective controls on personal imports and action in shops and other food premises against sales of illegally imported food. The Government are taking action in all of these contexts to build on existing controls.
	"First, we have set up improved arrangements for the pooling of information within government about known or suspected illegal imports. This will help the authorities concerned--MAFF, port health authorities, local authorities, Customs and Excise--to target their activities on the areas of greatest risk.
	"Secondly, the Food Standards Agency has undertaken a programme of visits of ports and airports to examine the effectiveness of public health controls on imported food.
	"Thirdly, we shall be taking early steps to ensure that the restrictions on what may be brought into the United Kingdom from outside the European Union and the European Economic Area are made known to travellers by a publicity campaign involving the travel industry, airports and ports and FCO posts abroad.
	"Fourthly, the Food Standards Agency has asked port health authorities and local authorities to ensure that as part of their routine inspections of food premises and imported food they should check for illegal imports. My right honourable friend the Minister of State has laid before the House an amendment to the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996 which will clarify local authorities' powers to seize suspected illegal imports. I understand that equivalent action is being taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	"Imports of meat and meat products into the United Kingdom, as into other member states of the European Union, take place within the framework of European law. As I promised the House on 27th March, I have asked the European Commission to give urgent attention to ensuring that the law on personal imports into the Union is clear and robust. Commissioner Byrne indicated at last week's meeting of the Agriculture Council that the Commission attached great importance to ensuring that there is a high level of protection from disease at the Community's borders. I understand that the Commission's current thinking is that the main scope for tightening the EU's policy on imports lies in ensuring that the current rules are properly policed and in identifying and closing any loopholes.
	"I referred last week to the banning of pigswill and undertook to make a further announcement. I can inform the House that we are today making an order that will ban the feeding of catering waste which contains, or has been in contact with, meat as swill to livestock. The ban is extended to include poultry and fish waste. The order will come into force on 24th May after a three-week phase-in period designed to ensure that animals can be safely weaned off waste food and on to an alternative diet.
	"The order has been made after consultation with the industry and other interested parties. The possible banning of all catering waste was considered in the consultation but subsequently deemed unnecessary, although the feeding of all types of catering waste coming from premises where meat or meat products are handled or prepared will be banned.
	"As I have said, we can be cautiously optimistic that the worst is over. But we know that there will be sporadic outbreaks for some time to come and that we cannot afford to let our guard drop for a moment. All the resources required to overcome the disease will remain in place where they are needed for as long as they are needed. We are determined to see this operation through to a successful conclusion. It is in all our interests to ensure that the job is done properly so that farming and the whole of the countryside can get back to normal as soon as possible".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, which we welcome, made in another place earlier today. Perhaps I may take this opportunity again to thank all those who have helped to combat the disease: UK vets and those from abroad, our Armed Forces, scientists and civil servants, both locally and nationally. Our thanks also go to the many volunteers who have supported those families directly affected by the disease. I also thank the many members of the public who have made generous donations to those charities concerned with stress relief. Our sympathies continue to go to the farming families who have had their lives shattered and their lifetime's work destroyed.
	While we are obviously encouraged to hear that the number of reported case is falling, 1,537 farms have been struck down by this terrible disease, over 2.4 million animals have been compulsorily destroyed and a further 630,000 have been destroyed under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. That is eight times the number killed in the 1967 outbreak.
	We are still concerned, although the numbers are fewer, about the continuing geographical spread of the disease in some areas; namely, the recent outbreaks in Satterthwaite in Cumbria because that is to the south of the Lake District and Wiveliscombe in Somerset which is a long way from nowhere, but also the spread of FMD across the Welsh valleys and across the country in the Borders of Scotland from west to east.
	The Statement refers to vigilance, but at the same time the Government state a desire to enable farmers to return to "business as usual", which is understandable. First, perhaps I may refer the Minister to the 1967 report where the dangers of easing back too soon was one of its recommendations. I know she will agree with that. Secondly, I refer to the impact of the slightly warmer weather. That lessons outbreaks of the disease. Thirdly, will the Government systematically test every contiguous herd on a regular basis to make sure that it is disease-free?
	The Statement stresses the need for continuing vigilance to be taken by farmers. Equally, as we come up to a Bank Holiday weekend, perhaps I may put in a plea that it is in the visitors' interests to be aware and observe those restrictions where they come into force. That is hugely important, particularly at a time when the situation is getting easier.
	I now turn directly to some questions for the Minister: first, will the Minister tell us within what timescale farmers can expect compensation to be made? I know that it has been announced that payments will be starting. Secondly, the Minister's right honourable friend earlier today said that there were no cuts to the welfare scheme. Will the noble Baroness therefore confirm that farmers whose animals were accepted into the livestock welfare scheme prior to Monday 13th April will be paid at the originally agreed rate and not at the reduced rate announced last week? If the noble Baroness cannot do so, will she agree that some farmers will be disadvantaged? Thirdly, has the task force considered recommending the interest-free loan to businesses affected during the outbreak? It has talked about tax concessions but we have called for loans to businesses. We have waited some weeks for an answer on this matter. Has the noble Baroness any more information on that matter?
	We welcome the extra help with the IACS payments announced in the Statement. We also welcome the greater freedom of movement of animals, although it is very much on a case for case basis, which we understand.
	The Statements last Thursday and today have referred to the protection of rare breeds. Last week's Statement particularly referred to that issue; today's one refers to the "special arrangements", and gives greater flexibility locally to the vets. Does the Minister accept that these rare breeds and moorland sheep should not be culled until blood tests have been taken which prove that the disease is in the herd? I am still not clear exactly what the position on that matter is. Some farmers have rung me and said that their flocks are being taken and culled without testing, whereas others have managed to protect their flocks as a result of appealing. Perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify that matter because the Statement today did not deal with the matter. Some breeders are beginning to feel that they are being unreasonably pressurised to agree to the slaughter of some of these very important flocks.
	While we on these Benches welcome many of the moves in the Statement, we particularly welcome the moves to control meat and meat product imports. That is something to which we have referred on many occasions. Can the Minister assure us that sufficient resources will be made available to the various departments which have to deal with these controls? The Statement speaks of ports and airports. But we know very well that Heathrow, in particular, has been aware of the problem but simply not had the resources to tackle it.
	Can she further tell us of the links between the various departments--the trading standards officers who have to deal with the matter at a local level and those at, for example, Dover and the airports? Furthermore, can she say what precautions can be put in place on the countries from which these illegal exports start if they come through Europe and into this country?
	We welcome the improved situation today and the further actions which are put forward in the Statement. We further welcome the extra help given to the beleaguered tourist and farming industries. But we regret that at the beginning of the outbreak the Government took so long to take real control of the situation and to use the necessary resources, in spite of the pressure from this party and from all the evidence in the Northumberland report.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome yet another Statement from the Minister on the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Indeed, we thank her for all her hard work in answering our questions.
	However, over time it has become quite frustrating to us on these Benches that we have Statements on the rural economy and the FMD outbreak issues separately, particularly as the economy issues are beginning very much to concern farmers. Everyone has tremendous sympathy for them because they suffer the difficulties of either having infected stock or being in an infected area with restricted movement while at the same time having their diversified businesses suffer. In future, we look forward to Statements which combine the two subjects, perhaps under less time pressure.
	It is with huge regret that I heard of another outbreak of FMD in Wiveliscombe in Somerset, just as that had become an uninfected area. While we give a cautious welcome to the Statement, in line with other parts of the country, our optimism is still tempered with real fear. There are rumours that the Wiveliscombe outbreak came from a relief milk worker doing his rounds. I ask the Minister what guidance was given by MAFF to such workers who go from farm to farm? We have now had milk tankers as suspected carriers as well as staff going from place to place. The public should know what guidance has been given.
	The Wiveliscombe outbreak highlights the issue of deer. The Statement last week mentioned that two deer were still being tested. Can the Minister confirm that deer are still free of the disease? That is particularly relevant to Wiveliscombe because of its proximity to Exmoor. Can the Minister further confirm that she is satisfied with the precautions being taken on routes on to the moor to protect its deer herd?
	I turn to the issue of rate relief. I believe your Lordships are likely to have the rating Bill that will enable diversified agricultural premises to receive extra relief. Is the Minister aware that that relief will go to farms in designated rural areas only? Is the noble Baroness aware of how many farms that will fall outside the designated areas that the Bill will not help unless the Government choose to widen that designation to all farm diversification?
	Another critical issue for the Government's objective of increasing the output of organic agriculture is compensation: the welfare scheme. Why does the welfare scheme give the same price for organic and conventional stock? The fact is that the organic sector has had higher costs, particularly in feed, in producing its animals. It is really suffering because the prices paid to it not only were lowered last week but were already lower than the premium price they expected, having been encouraged--I admit by us on these Benches too--by the Government to go into organic farming. That scheme should recognise the much higher costs involved and therefore qualify those farmers for higher compensation.
	In the longer term, I hope that the Minister will implement in a generous way the early retirement scheme for farmers and tie it to a young entrants into farming scheme. Those of us in infected areas do not want to see the foot and mouth outbreak become the reason for a mass exodus from farming. The lack of a young entrants scheme means that farms that presently have 30 cattle or 200 sheep are likely to be amalgamated or, at worst, sold off to become establishments for those with one or two horses. It is a real worry that we will not see young people going into farming.
	I turn to the issue of imported meat. The Statement refers to illegal meat imports, but the checking of legal meat imports is of critical importance. The Minister will have noted the replies to Written Questions that I have tabled about the source of Ministry of Defence supplies of meat. I accept that the meat comes from many countries which are not infected with foot and mouth, but it also comes from Uruguay and Brazil which are infected. What checks are carried out at our ports to ensure that the statements by producers in foreign countries that the meat comes from uninfected regions are true and that the meat is clean? Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient staff to carry out those checks? My colleagues in another place have tried hard to go to ports and airports to check on what is happening. They have been stonewalled, which is disappointing. We would have liked them to have the opportunity to check what is happening.
	In conclusion, I have enormous sympathy for farmers who have had infected animals. I also have sympathy for those who have uninfected animals. They and others in the rural economy have been through difficult times too. I doubt whether we shall have another Statement before we all disappear to our various regions. One of the obvious ways for noble Lords and the public to show sympathy is to support a "Buy British Meat" campaign, which the Government should be undertaking. When the crisis is over, I think that the public and farmers deserve a full public inquiry.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments. I am particularly grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the enormous effort that has been put in on the ground by people who have not always been given a fair hearing by every element of the media and who have worked tirelessly over the past 11 weeks.
	Perhaps I may deal with some of the specific issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the time-scale for compensation payments. Our aim is to pay compensation within three weeks of receipt of the claim. The noble Baroness will understand that at the peak of the disease there was an enormous peak of claims as well. There have therefore been some delays. Although payments have already been made in a number of cases, we have recruited extra staff who are now working on a seven-days-a-week basis in order urgently to get that money through. The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that there are a number of sources of emergency financial aid, many of them generously supported by the public. I notice from my own correspondence that there was even a whip-round in the House of Lords. We have done everything we can to publicise those sources of emergency financial help. However, I quite take on board the point that it is our responsibility to ensure that compensation is paid speedily.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about the case in Somerset. We are still looking at the exact circumstances of the case. I can quite understand the local despondency, people having felt that the "all clear" had been given. The noble Baroness asked about the advice given to those involved in deliveries, whether of feed and so on, to farms, or the taking away of milk from farms. A number of guidance notes have been put out. I shall ensure that she receives copies. The noble Baroness may be interested to know that we are putting a new director of operations into Taunton immediately to co-ordinate operations there.
	Both noble Baronesses asked about the import of meat. I have already set out the arrangements we have put in place across government to co-ordinate activities. It is necessary to back that up with resource. However, as the Statement says, it is important also that some of the resource is information, so that we know what we target most effectively and ensure that all the agencies involved are working together. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has tabled a number of Questions about legally imported meat for the MoD from Uruguay and Brazil. It is important to make it clear that the MoD's purchases in those areas are legal. They are certificated, which is the main means of inspection. The pan-Asiatic strain of foot and mouth that we are currently seeing in this country is not the same strain as is present in Brazil and Uruguay. It is important to make that point.
	The noble Baroness asked about deer. I shall certainly look further into the issue, but my current understanding is that there have been no confirmed cases in deer during this outbreak.
	Both noble Baronesses asked about the welfare disposal scheme. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, may have misunderstood the position. As was announced, the payments that will be made under the scheme will apply from Monday onwards and they will apply to animals taken from Monday past. That is because the arrangements between the intervention board and farmer are finalised only at the transfer of stock. On many occasions, the stock is withdrawn, after having been registered on the scheme; on many occasions, different numbers of stock are taken. For many people, different opportunities have arisen. I quite accept that in the course of a changing situation, where people have come into infected areas or gone out of infected areas, where they have been under form Ds or not under form Ds, or where they have had an abattoir that was functioning in their infected area or in their non-infected area, individual circumstances have become more or less beneficial to them. However, the scheme was not set up as an alternative market. It was set up as an option of last resort to solve welfare problems that could not be solved in any other way. I have to say to the noble Baroness that there was ample evidence on the ground that it was operating as an alternative market. The greatest long-term danger for the UK livestock industry is to suck in imports and to substitute for UK produce. That is why for stock that could go on to the market--not for first breeding stock--we have made those changes.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was right about the rural economy. The intimate inter-relationship between agriculture and other parts of the rural economy has been demonstrated by this event. I am sorry about the frustrations. I shall write to the noble Baroness about her specific point on rate relief. I am sure that what she said, in terms both of early retirement and young entrants, will be considered in the detailed discussions on the long-term recovery plan.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for the qualified optimism of her report and hope that it will not be touched with hubris. Indeed, I do not think that it will be. After such a terrible few weeks, it is heartening to see some signs that the measures, albeit highly contentious, are now bringing the outbreak under control.
	Is the Minister able to say at this stage that the authorities have concluded their investigations to determine what caused this outbreak? If so, can she say what is the present judgment?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I certainly would not want to give an impression that allowed anyone to accuse me of hubris. Furthermore, I would not want to be accused of complacency. The word that I should like to stress today is "vigilance". Any optimism must be qualified. We can expect to continue to see cases reported and if we do not sustain our vigilance, then we shall not see the current progress maintained. That is the only message that I should like to give today.
	So far as concerns the origins of the disease outbreak, I have to say that, although it is as frustrating for me as it is for the noble Lord, investigations on the initial farm have not yet been concluded and therefore I cannot report on them to the House. However, I think that the analysis of the origins of this outbreak, along with the analysis of its epidemiology, will go beyond the single spark incident into the structure of the industry. We have seen how that structure led to the disease being geographically dispersed so widely. That of course underpins the current consultations on, for example, sheep movements.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while the watchword must be "vigilance" rather than "complacency", many noble Lords have noted that MAFF was remarkably accurate about the falling numbers of new cases which would follow the 48-hour cull policy in its forecast published a month ago? We recognise, too, that the logistics of this exercise have been, to quote an Army spokesman, "far more challenging than Kosovo".
	Will the Minister ensure that all those involved, both from MAFF and from the Army, are informed that all sides of this House, as evinced today, greatly appreciate the extraordinary efforts that have been made?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind comments, in particular on behalf of those people whom I have met out in the field. They have been working every single day without a break and were rather distressed to find that they were being categorised as "bumbling bureaucrats", when they have been working their hearts out to try to help in this desperate situation.
	None of us has attempted to make forecasts. The epidemiologists have offered a range of projections. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that those who have followed both the comparison with 1967 and the disease curves produced by this disease outbreak hope that they will continue to offer reliable information.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, now that we have reached May, and possibly we shall see some hot weather in June, can the Minister tell the House what will be the clipping regulations, given that many small farmers use contract clippers?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there is a problem about this, in particular in infected areas. I shall correct this in writing if I am wrong, but I believe that, so far as concerns non-infected control areas, guidance has been issued, but difficulties still remain as regards infected areas. I shall look into it and see what can be done. We have here the tension between wanting to return to normal husbandry and livestock practice and the difficulties posed by potential disease spread. As ever, we need to take veterinary advice.
	The noble Baroness is right. I have been looking for sunshine since 20th February.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, while today's Statement is greatly to be welcomed, can the Minister say whether the greater discretion given to vets in the matter of culling will extend to sheep and pigs, in particular to those which might be regarded as pets rather than as parts of large-scale commercial undertakings, and also to rare breeds? May I also press the noble Baroness on the matter of a public inquiry? Would it not be greatly advantageous if the public inquiry were to be set up immediately, along the lines consistently advocated by my noble friend Lord Jopling?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have consistently noted the advocacy of such a public inquiry. What is important is not the form that the inquiry should take but that we learn the lessons that must be learnt--inevitably there will be lessons here--as a result of what has taken place.
	As regards the adjusted policy on contiguous premises, sheep and pigs have not been included in the greater flexibility arrangements. That was because of the difficulties presented by sheep in the detection of disease due to their role as silent shedders of virus. The difficulty with pigs is presented by the level of virus which they exhale as soon as they are infected, sometimes before the symptoms become apparent.
	The only exception to these non-exceptions is the policy on rare breeds and hefted sheep. Guidance has been produced. I pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. We do recognise the importance of safeguarding rare breeds. Some work has been done in relation to resources being made available to the gene bank at York University but, equally, special veterinary assessments can be made. They will not be able to give the all-clear in all cases but will allow some protection in some cases. The assessment procedure can be invoked in relation to rare breeds and hefted sheep.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hope that I am second to none in congratulating my noble friend on her role in this matter. I also welcome the Statement made today. It will come as a great relief to those of us whose homes are in infected areas because we are worried about this whole matter.
	I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First, in infected areas, is it the case that, where there has been an alleged outbreak and contiguous farms are under threat from Form D notices--I am under such a threat--the notice can be cleared only after all the sheep on contiguous farms have been blood-tested? I should say that this is a big animal welfare problem in Radnor.
	Secondly, rather than put a question, I should like to suggest to my noble friend that some people are a little confused as regards the respective roles of MAFF and the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly has certain powers; MAFF has other powers. I very much hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to respond to this, but I am sure that people living in Radnor would like to have a definition of who does what, where and with whom.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am certainly not going to respond to that request from the Dispatch Box, but I undertake to write to my noble friend. He is quite right to point out that, although the fount of veterinary advice is common to both Wales and England, responsibilities in some areas are devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. However, I shall feel much more confident if I write to the noble Lord with the detail.
	I understand the frustrations experienced by those who live in Form D premises within the three-kilometre protection zone as regards the need to collect all the serology results before the notice can be lifted. I am afraid that clearly laid out EU regulations govern this matter, as well as veterinary advice on the dangers of being precipitate here. We must recognise that sometimes the serology may produce results that we would not have wished to see, or that sometimes the results may be uncertain and thus will take longer to process. As I said in the Statement, we have made some progress and, in some ways, that makes it even more frustrating for those like my noble friend who are waiting for advice. However, I know that work is being carried out in his area.
	Finally, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the noble Baroness has repeated the Minister's Statement, which includes the sentence:
	"There is no longer any backlog of animals awaiting disposal anywhere in Great Britain".
	At 11 o'clock this morning, MAFF issued its foot and mouth disease daily situation report. According to that report, at 1900 hours on Wednesday, 2nd May, some 59,000 animals remained to be disposed of.
	The Minister also said that there are a small number of animals awaiting slaughter. That same document, issued this morning, stated that 107,000 animals are awaiting slaughter. Does the noble Baroness regard these figures as consistent with the Minister's Statement? If she does not, does she recognise that it gives one a little less confidence in MAFF?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord less confidence in MAFF because he never seemed to have any in the first place. The effort involved in ensuring that the statistics reflect the reality on the ground--because people have been more interested in dealing with the reality on the ground than they have been in recording what has been done in terms of disposal--has been quite considerable. A lot of effort has gone into ensuring that the situation on the ground is accurately reported in the Statement. If I may, I shall take away the figures that the noble Lord has quoted from this morning's website and write to him with a detailed explanation.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the way in which she has dealt with very anxious people over a long period of time. I mentioned at the beginning how sympathetic the noble Baroness sounded on the radio. That sympathy has been evident through the whole of this dreadful situation.
	The Minister knows that our farm was declared to be in an infected area very early on in the outbreak. Fortunately, we are still only in an infected area; we are not an infected premises. How will a large area, which covers Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Dyfed and other areas be divided up in terms of the relaxation of restrictions? Will restrictions be relaxed over the area as a whole, or will it be done piece by piece? For example, there has not been a case since 12th April in Worcestershire. I touch wood very firmly.
	The Minister has mentioned the possibility of sheep being carriers. There seems to be an awful lot of misunderstanding about vaccination and about consumer attitudes to vaccination. Sheep are vaccinated against all kinds of diseases throughout the year and everyone eats lamb with no problem at all. Will the Minister look again at this situation? Will she perhaps carry out consumer surveys to find out exactly what consumers do and do not know about vaccination and what happens to the animals, and to see whether consumer attitudes can be changed? I have a great fear that there will be a residue of foot and mouth disease which will resurge in the autumn when the cold, damp weather arrives. This fear has been recently iterated by a number of scientists.
	Can the Minister say whether there will be a review of the State Veterinary Service? The Minister knows from our discussions about the Meat Hygiene Service that the State Veterinary Service has been under a great deal of criticism for a very long time. The foot and mouth disaster has highlighted the acute shortage of State Veterinary Service vets and, perhaps, their qualities. I make no criticism of the qualities of the vets who have been out in the field and who are doing their best under very difficult circumstances, but there would seem to be some problems at the top.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as to the noble Countess's last point, I gave the numbers employed in the State Veterinary Service over the past 20 years in a parliamentary Answer not long ago. There has been a decline. The support that Ministers in MAFF have received from the chief veterinary officer and his four deputies has been outstanding. I should like to place on record my personal thanks to them. We were already involved in drawing up a surveillance strategy. One of the issues we shall have to look at in the aftermath of this outbreak is the structure, role and resources of the State Veterinary Service.
	As to the issue of the very large area to which the noble Countess referred, we shall have to look very carefully at that issue. I hope that we shall be able to shrink the area in accordance with chronology rather than geography. That was the way in which we approached the classical swine fever regionalisation. I hope that we shall be able to do that in regard to this outbreak. As the noble Countess rightly said, some premises were infected much earlier than others, and it has been possible to do that in some areas.
	So far as concerns vaccination, the noble Countess is right to pinpoint the issue of consumer confidence and the fact that many livestock animals are vaccinated against many diseases without incurring any lack of confidence. The evidence of the potential reaction of both manufacturers and consumers to vaccination in the midst of a disease outbreak has not been good. The noble Countess is wise to suggest that we should have discussions at a time when we are not at the height of the disease. I know that my right honourable friend believes that such discussions should be held throughout Europe. We have had discussions with the Dutch agriculture Minister, who shares the views expressed in some of the recent challenges in regard to the attitude towards vaccination. Public dialogue--I shall not say "education" because that sounds condescending--in regard to the issues involved should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will return to the question of my noble friend Lady Miller concerning the issue of organic livestock and the welfare disposal scheme. Do the Government intend to look again at this issue? Does the Minister agree that it seems very unfair that where production costs are so much higher the compensation rates should be the same as for ordinary production?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the same point has been made in regard to pedigree animals. As I said before when talking about the scheme, the prime objective of the welfare scheme is to deal with an outstanding welfare problem. It goes beyond simply taking the animal away at the cost rate and meeting the cost of disposal and slaughter; it goes towards making a payment to the farmer. It differentiates between breeding stock, for example, and different categories of animal; it does not differentiate, as the market place would do, between organic and ordinary animals. I can understand why those involved in organic farming would wish that to be the case, as would those with pedigree animals, but the scheme was not set up to provide an alternative market place or to reflect the market place.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. According to a Written Answer given by the Minister on 1st May, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which appeared at col. WA 263 of the Official Report, the Government have a hierarchy of disposal options governing the disposal of livestock in a cull such as we have at present. Outstanding in her Answer was the fact that all the legislation governing disposal has been introduced since the previous outbreak. We seem to be operating under completely new rules. Has the hierarchy of disposal options changed since the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions took over responsibility from MAFF? Given the fact that two ministries are involved in the cull, which Minister has been required to serve the notice under the Animal By-Products Order 1999 requiring the disposal of carcasses by burning?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my understanding is that MAFF Ministers are responsible for the Animal By-Products Order. I do not believe that such orders require ministerial signing; they can be signed by officials on behalf of the Minister.
	I am not quite clear what the noble Duke was referring to in terms of "since responsibility has transferred from MAFF to the DETR". These are technical issues and, as I do not have the answers that I gave on 1st May in front of me, I shall, if I may, study his questions in detail and respond to him in writing.

Health and Social Care Bill

Read a third time.
	Clause 17 [National patients' body for England]:

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 15, line 44, leave out "(Patients' Forums)" and insert "12"

Earl Howe: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 18 and 21. The amendments can be dealt with briefly. They are purely consequential upon the amendments carried in this House last week on the reform of community health councils. They are necessary in order to ensure that the Bill as amended is internally consistent. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 16, line 5, leave out "(Patients' Forums)" and insert "12"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 3:
	After Clause 30, insert the following new clause--
	"CONSULTATION OF RELEVANT ORGANISATIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE
	In section 6 of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 (c. 46), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted--
	"(1A) Before making directions under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult such organisations as he may recognise as representing persons providing personal medical or dental services under section 28C arrangements.""

Earl Howe: My Lords, I make no apology for returning once again to an issue that has caused considerable concern and dismay to doctors and specifically to the BMA as their representative body. The BMA believes it to be an issue of fundamental importance that consultation and negotiation with the BMA's General Practitioners Committee on national personal medical services directions and regulations should take place on the same basis as it does currently for general medical services issues.
	The position is simple. Matters concerning medical services in primary care affect GPs; and since the General Practitioners Committee represents all GPs, it should be consulted about changes to either the GMS or the PMS national contract elements.
	Although individual personal medical services contracts are agreed locally, they are defined by a core national contract and national PMS regulations and directions which apply to all PMS GPs. I return to Section 6(1) of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997, which provides for the implementation directions to be made. Such directions include terms of service issues, such as defining who patients are, how doctors deal with temporary residence and so on. The amendment would require the Secretary of State, before making these directions, to consult with the organisations recognised as representing health professionals providing personal medical or dental services. In the case of GPs, this would be the BMA's General Practitioners Committee. However, the BMA recognises that, with PMS, other organisations and professions may be involved, and the amendment provides for such consultation.
	A key point is that this provision should be on the face of the Bill. It is essential for GPs in personal medical services schemes to have confidence in the system. They should have the same protection of national representation as colleagues providing general medical services. I hope that the Minister can provide me with an encouraging reply. I beg to move.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this amendment. The resistance on the part of the Government to this proposal, both in Committee and on Report, seems baffling. Even in terms of the Minister's admission that these matters will need to be negotiated locally, the Bill seems to contain no such provision.
	This amendment is a new one. It gives considerable flexibility to the Government in determining which bodies they would regard as properly representing general practitioners in these circumstances. We on these Benches believe that it has considerable merit. We urge the Minister to think again and to concede this point.

Lord Rea: My Lords, we went through the territory of this amendment both in Committee and on Report. It is an important issue if the Government wish to see an increasing number of PMS schemes succeed. I am a great enthusiast for personal medical services pilots. I believe that they can be used in many areas on an extremely useful basis and I want to see the scheme succeed.
	The NHS Plan for the modernisation of the health service states, at paragraph 8.9:
	"By 2004 both local Personal Medical Services and national arrangements are set to operate within a single contractual framework that will meet the key principles and requirements of a modern NHS".
	The doctors who will supply personal medical services will be GPs who have worked in the NHS providing general medical services. They will not be so happy to move out of that safe haven into new schemes if the General Practitioners Committee of the BMA is not looking out for their interests. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the amendment; or, if not, that he will at least give us an assurance that PMS practitioners will not be treated any differently from GMS practitioners.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that I can provide some reassurance to noble Lords on a matter that we have discussed a number of times previously. I begin by reaffirming that, of course, we want to see the closest possible working relationship with GPs and their representative organisations in modernising primary care, and in particular in developing PMS.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, not only would the amendment require the Secretary of State to consult with the GPC; it would also require the Government to consult other organisations which represent persons or organisations providing PMS. My understanding is that, as well as the GPC, it would therefore include the RCN, the NAPC, the NHS Alliance and the NHS Confederation which represents community trusts and primary care trusts. Indeed, as nurses can be involved, I guess that UNISON might also be an organisation that would have a right to be heard if the amendment were accepted.
	The noble Earl said that the GPC represented all GPs. It would be fairer to say that the GPC represents all GMS GPs, plus those PMS GPs who choose to be represented by their local medical committee. Not all choose to be so represented.
	Personal medical services pilots are an excellent opportunity for health authorities and, increasingly, primary care trusts and service providers--particularly GPs, nurses, community trusts or primary care trusts--to test different options for delivering front-line services which provide flexibility and, indeed, freedom for professionals to shape local services within a clear national framework of standards and accountability. Essentially, PMS pilots allow a GP practice or a group of practices to agree a new contract with their local health authority or primary care trust. This essentially replaces the existing contract and their payments for delivering GMS under the "Red Book". Similarly, community trusts or primary care trusts can enter these types of contracts with their health authority, and then employ the doctors and nurses who treat the pilot's patients. All PMS providers also, of course, need contracts for the practice staff they employ.
	I should emphasise to my noble friend Lord Rea the point that providers enter such contracts voluntarily. GPs can not only choose whether or not to enter PMS and become a PMS pilot, they also have a right to return to GMS and the national contract. I believe that the PMS pilot schemes have proved to be an enormous boon to developing primary care services locally. The Government recognise that GPs considering PMS should be properly represented by their professional body. The question, surely, is at what level. The PMS is a locally contracted system. The Government believe that representation is crucial at the local level. For GPs, this should be through the local medical committee--the LMC.
	The LMC is responsible for representing NHS GPs locally in matters relating to their terms of service. We believe that it is in a better position to focus on the range of local issues that more directly affect the detail and negotiation of each particular local contract. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I should point out that the role of the LMC was recognised by the Government two years ago in the Health Act 1999. This changed the law to allow PMS GPs to join and be represented by their LMC. As I said yesterday in the debate on morale in the NHS, although I feel it is my duty to point out the failings of the previous government, we accept that their development of PMS was a very good move and one upon which we have built. However, while I commend them for the introduction of PMS, I should stress that that government did not provide for PMS GPs to be represented by their trade union or professional body at any level. We believe that we have corrected that omission by recognising the role of local medical committees.
	We believe that the amendment could seek, at national level, to restrict the range of PMS pilots into which the members of the various bodies involved could enter freely. That would be quite wrong. Given the number of organisations involved, it would surely be unworkable. Such matters should be determined locally. That is why the implementation directions, in conjunction with the model core contractual framework (the "core contract"), set the minimum requirements to ensure equity and quality for patients.
	The core contract does not define PMS. It provides a platform on which the health authority or primary care trust, along with prospective PMS providers, locally negotiate the actual individually-tailored PMS contract. There is, of course, nothing to stop the national organisations giving advice to their local representatives who can, in turn, advise their members. I understand that that is what happens; indeed, I presume so.
	I wish to assure noble Lords that we do seek the views of the national organisations that I mentioned on the development of PMS. For example, the core contractual framework was developed inclusively with input from the GPC, among others. We involved the GPC fully in a PMS reference group. Indeed this week the GPC, the RCN and UNISON took part in the first meeting of the PMS implementation group.
	I have listened most closely to the points made this afternoon, and those made both in Committee and on Report. As I said earlier, we want to see the closest possible working relationship with GPs over the development of PMS. In response to the comments that have been made, I am happy to consider, with the GPC and others, how the PMS implementation group could be strengthened and improved. Indeed, in addition, my right honourable friend Mr John Denham has also offered to meet the BMA to discuss all the issues associated with PMS. We are currently trying to find a mutually convenient date for such a meeting. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will not consider it necessary to press his amendment.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, not least for the remarks that he made at the end of his answer which give me cause for some encouragement. I believe that the Minister recognises in principle the need for the PMS implementation group to be strengthened. I hope that that idea can be taken forward constructively.
	However, I am a little disappointed that the Minister does not consider that a provision of the kind suggested in the amendment should be included on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord stated that a requirement to consult at national level might well inhibit the freedom of individual doctors and reduce the number of PMS contracts that were entered into. I do not see that as being a risk of consultation; indeed, consultation is merely what it says. It is a process to which the noble Lord is well accustomed. I very much doubt that it would have that negative impact.
	I have no disagreement with the Minister at all that LMCs should be involved in local negotiations; that is clearly right, and a step forward. However, it seems to me to be equally appropriate that there should be a mechanism for national negotiation when national changes are being proposed. For example, in my view, the Government ought to be required to consult the GPC on changes to the national core contract which impact upon PMS GPs. That also applies to any changes to national PMS directions.
	Despite the differences between us, I suspect that there is little in practice that separates us. I know that the Minister is committed to ensuring that the whole concept works properly. However, I hope that he will take on board the concerns that have been registered by noble Lords from all sides of the House. I trust that he is clear that those concerns have not been raised lightly. We look forward to seeing progress on this front. I thank the Minister again for his response, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 51 [Care Trusts where directed partnership arrangements]:

Lord Clement-Jones: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 58, line 36, at end insert ", in line with published criteria and following a clear and transparent process"

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I shall anticipate Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 to some degree. I say that because Amendment No. 4 has been drafted on the basis that the Minister will be putting forward Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. However, procedurally I believe that I need to move my amendment first--

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I risk getting into a procedural tangle at this point, but if the noble Lord would care to move Amendment No. 4 formally I could then speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that seems to me to be an excellent suggestion. Therefore, I formally move Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in responding to Amendment No. 4 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, perhaps I may stress, first, that I have listened with great care to the debate that we have had over the issue of care trusts. To sum up that debate, I believe that I can say that most, if not all, noble Lords see the merits of voluntary care trusts. They are seen to be a significant step forward in ensuring the integration of health and social care services, which will be to the benefit of patients and the public. I acknowledge that there has been somewhat less agreement on our proposals for compulsory care trusts. At times, the concerns about compulsory care trusts have almost threatened to overshadow the debates on the positive opportunities offered by voluntary care trusts.
	As I said, I have listened carefully to the debate and to the concerns that have been expressed. As I indicated on Report, we have thought again about compulsory care trusts. We have concluded that the best way to respond to those concerns is to withdraw the proposals for compulsory care trusts. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. If those amendments are accepted, care trusts will be entered into only on a voluntary basis. I hope that that addresses many of the wider concerns noble Lords have raised in relation to care trusts.
	My amendments seek to ensure that we do not lose the enthusiasm for developing voluntary care trusts because of a perception that compulsory care trusts will be the default mechanism where they are not being set up voluntarily. That was never our intention, but I know that there have been real anxieties about that possibility. We certainly do not want the model to be tainted; for people to hold back on the basis that they might as well, because they could be directed to form a care trust in the fullness of time.
	We are anxious for the work to go forward to develop care trusts where they can make a difference to the quality of services for local people, enhance the community leadership role of the local authority and ensure that their efforts to develop the well-being of the community can be pursued through this mechanism as well as through the Health Act partnership arrangements. We do not want the organisational boundaries of local government and the National Health Service to be the reason why services cannot be successfully put together. Neither do we want the fears of future direction to hang over a valuable model which we believe will foster the closest working relationships.
	However, we are still concerned about our ability to tackle failure. We believe that there has to be a mechanism to be used when measures to improve services within an existing organisation have been exhausted. This is often when the whole of the corporate structure is unable to respond to the changes that need to be made to improve services for users. It can be for a whole host of reasons, and on occasion, despite the fact that all of the factors have been addressed, the improvement in services may still not be sufficient to ensure that vulnerable or ill people are not put at risk. In many cases in those circumstances partnership will be the answer.
	Although the original failure may have been identified in one particular agency, not only may the problems be reflected in the other local agency, but their own work for a particular client group may be hampered by difficulties that cannot be overcome. It may well be in their best interests to be able, from one management structure, either to commission or to provide the range of services. Difficulties with hospital discharge can be caused by a number of factors--these can emerge from within the acute sector, the community health services, the local authority responsibilities. The evidence of the problem may be seen as blocked beds in the acute sector, not enough residential and nursing home places apparently available, or in sufficient resources available for them, not enough alternative, intermediate care being developed, poor equipment services and so on.
	There needs to be a mechanism through which action can be taken. Although we agree that compulsory care trusts may not be the right approach, the amendments that I propose leave intact the powers to require the use of the Health Act partnership arrangements in response to service failure. Under these powers the Secretary of State could intervene in a failing service to require the local partners to enter into pooled fund arrangements or to delegate functions between the bodies.
	By tying this power to the Health Act flexibilities we ensure an explicitly even-handed provision, applicable to both the NHS and local authorities. Unlike the provisions for a compulsory care trust, there would be no new body. The partners would therefore retain their original identity and responsibilities. The accountability arrangements would be similar to those established for voluntary partnership arrangements; for example, partnership boards to oversee any joint or delegated commissioning. Models for delivering such services are already well established. Even so, I assure the House that I do not consider--even with the amendments that I propose--that this is a power to be taken lightly. We recognise that this is a power of last resort, and one which will be considered only when other measures have been exhausted. I believe that this is an effective compromise. It makes clear that care trusts are a purely voluntary model, but it enables the Government to use directed partnerships as a last resort.
	I understand the concerns behind Amendment No. 4 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. However, I hope to be able to reassure him on the approach we intend to take. We are not starting from a blank sheet of paper. The power will be used in conjunction with the existing powers of the Secretary of State and built into the existing processes. The existing processes include the Social Services Inspectorate and the detailed protocol agreed with the LGA about intervention that leads from monitoring and inspection activities. We have published performance assessment frameworks for both the NHS and social services and performance management mechanisms. We have the developing work of the Commission for Health Improvement. In this Bill we propose to take powers to manage failure within the NHS.
	As I have said, the clause is designed to enable us to have a very valuable option as a last resort to direct the use of the partnership arrangements. Just as those build on existing arrangements and powers, the power of direction does the same. We shall make use of the existing powers when it is clear that action needs to be taken. The Secretary of State is required to act properly in using his powers as a fundamental principle of public law. He will exercise the power when it is clearly legitimate to do so, when he has the appropriate amount of evidence on which to make a decision and when other avenues have been tried without success. The process will be transparent, as it has to be.
	The LGA has already agreed a protocol with the Social Services Inspectorate about the consequences of inspections. This will be added to to take account of these new powers. I assure the House that officials will work with the LGA and the NHS Confederation to ensure that protocols cover this as an integral part. That is the key to clarity and transparency, rather than Amendment No. 4. I hope that my comments have gone a long way to meet the concerns raised by noble Lords in previous debates.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. His comments on government Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 and my Amendment No. 4 were extremely helpful. We believe that eliminating the concept of compulsory care trusts goes a long way towards re-establishing confidence in voluntary care trusts and in the view that voluntary relationships which are tailored to meet the needs of local communities are the best way to deliver integrated healthcare. The compulsory use of Health Act flexibilities would be absolutely a last resort.
	In responding to Amendment No. 4, the Minister gave assurances about processes. I welcomed his statement that the Secretary of State is required to act properly and that he will exercise the power when he has the appropriate amount of evidence on which to make a decision. The Minister also referred to a protocol agreed with the SSI on the consequences of inspections, and to performance assessment frameworks. He also said that the department will work with the Local Government Association and the NHS Confederation on that matter. Those are important safeguards. Even with the amendments the Secretary of State still has considerable powers which could potentially have a major impact. It is important that these powers will be used as a last resort.
	From a procedural point of view, it would be difficult for the Minister to give further assurances on one or two matters. I hope that the Minister will discuss with the NHS Confederation and the LGA an appeals process in cases where the evidence is not completely clear and where there is room for doubt. I hope that there will be an appeals process for parties who are subjected to the compulsory power. We believe that that should be agreed. We know that the LGA would welcome such a process.
	The Minister has gone a long way towards addressing our concerns. I welcome his amendments. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 59, line 1, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 59, leave out lines 40 and 41.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: moved Amendment No. 7:
	After Clause 54, insert the following new clause--
	"EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES FOR HEALTHCARE PURPOSES
	(1) Where a person has been assessed by a National Health Service body, or any other body or suitably qualified person acting under delegation or under contract to a National Health Service body, or as part of a multi-disciplinary assessment as reasonably requiring medical, surgical or nursing equipment or supplies for health care purposes, including that provided by or in a residential or nursing home, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to provide such equipment or supplies.
	(2) For the avoidance of doubt, a local authority shall not be prohibited from providing or making the arrangements for equipment or supplies under subsection (1), provided they are delivered under the delegated authority of the NHS within the provisions under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) (delegated NHS functions); and in such cases section 1(2) (services free of charge) of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) applies.
	(3) Nothing in this section affects the provisions of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49)."

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who supported the amendment on Report. I especially thank noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment which is changed to take into consideration the Minister's comments on the previous amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, who spoke on Report now has his name to the amendment. I am very grateful.
	On Report, there was widespread disappointment when the Government stated that there was no intention that the NHS should pay for basics such as incontinence pads and sheets. It appears bizarre that this stance should be taken when the NHS provides such basics in all other settings and when it is contrary to the Government's line on nursing where the policy is to ensure that the anomaly of people having to pay for nursing care when it is free elsewhere is removed. There seems no reason not to remove this similar but much less costly anomaly.
	It is worrying from a legal point of view. Section 1 of the NHS Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to continue to promote a "comprehensive health service" designed to secure improvement in physical and mental health and the prevention and treatment of illness and yet guidance specifically states that incontinence pads which are considered to be part of the comprehensive health service in all other settings are not covered by the NHS when the person is in a nursing home. I refer to paragraph G of Annex A HSG (95) 8. It then states that incontinence pads should be included in the price charged by the home to the local authority or the person.
	In effect, people in nursing homes are having to pay for services which in all other settings fall under Sections 1 and 3 of the NHS Act and so, according to Section 1(2), should be free at the point of delivery.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, will deal with the issue of age discrimination.
	The Public Health Laboratory Service published the first audit of infection control practice in nursing homes in the UK last year. It is thought that the medical and nursing resources to prevent and manage infection did not follow the patient into the community when in 1993 the community care legislation resulted in a major shift of patients from the NHS long-stay hospital beds to private, community-based nursing homes. Community infection control nurses are not obliged to visit these nursing homes. Yet it is known that the nursing homes are responsible for 78 per cent of outbreaks of infective diarrhoea in the UK and may be reservoirs of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), with up to 27 per cent of residents being colonised.
	I hope that your Lordships will agree that the same standards for infection control should be applicable to nursing homes. Without affording proper continence aids, corners could be cut, standards may not be assured and infection can spread. This amendment has the full backing of Age Concern England. I beg to move.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, as in the debate on a similar amendment at this Bill's Report stage, I rise briefly to support the renewed call of my good and noble friend Lady Masham to end the cruel anomaly of charging people in nursing homes for essential medical equipment that would be paid for or loaned by the NHS if they were looked after in their own homes. The issue at stake here is that of preserving the "N" in NHS.
	Gastro-nasal feeding tubes, beds especially designed to prevent pressure sores and incontinence pads were spoken of in debates at earlier stages of the Bill's consideration as if they were the optional extras of medical care, even at times as if they were luxury goods. In fact they are medical necessities for the people this amendment seeks to help; and I hope very much that the outcome today will be one that they and those who care for them can welcome unreservedly.
	As of now, the legal position in relation to incontinence pads is especially worrying. Section 1 of the National Health Service Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to continue to promote a "comprehensive health service" designed to secure improvement in physical and mental health and the prevention and treatment of illness; and yet current guidance specifically states that incontinence pads, which are considered to be part of the "comprehensive health service" in all other settings, are not covered by the NHS when a person is in a nursing home.
	That must be indefensible legally, just as the moral case for equal treatment is also overwhelmingly strong. For how can it possibly be right--or consistent with the founding principles of the National Health Service--for medical help to be provided not on the basis of need but on where the patient is cared for?
	I am wholly satisfied that it gives my noble friend Lord Hunt no pleasure if he has to resist amendments of this merit and moral importance. Indeed I am sure that nothing would please him more than to be able to offer today to meet our case in full. I hope profoundly that he can help and I know that he will do so if he can. For certainly a Bill which offers so much that is good for the providers of medical care and patients alike would not merely be flawed but badly demeaned and disfigured without the improving effect of this amendment.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, perhaps one matter would please the Minister more: to start implementing the national service framework. The first and welcome standard in that framework is about outwitting age discrimination within the health service and ensuring that all people are treated on the basis of need, not age. It is an interesting document. It refers to the way in which age discrimination within the health service can be incidental and unintended. But it refers to the fact that certain practices have disproportionate effects on older people who comprise the largest group of users of the NHS.
	The community care statistics for the year 2000 show that of the beds in private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics, 83 per cent were occupied by people aged over 65; and that two-fifths of those individuals were people aged 85 and over. Because of the disproportionate number of older people in that situation, the denial to them of a service which would be free in any other setting in the NHS is tantamount to age discrimination.
	I hope that the Minister will have listened with great care to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. This will not be a costly exercise for the NHS but it will have a practical outcome. It will enable many older people to retain their dignity. If that one factor is achieved by this Bill, some of us will be extremely happy.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to draw attention to how the Government can best ensure that people's reasonable healthcare needs are met. I would prefer such needs to be met by the NHS in long-term care settings rather than according to the Government's definition of nursing provided by a registered nurse, which might prove rather artificial. That would cover certain equipment and services, such as continence pads and gastro-nasal tubes, and would allow flexibility for the changing role of nurses, which has been discussed during the passage of the Bill. Ever more of their work is now done by other staff under a nurse's supervision, or is not a nursing function at all. For example, we do not think of chiropody services as a nursing function.
	I was also concerned that the Bill might be inflexible on the issue, although I have gathered that changes could be made through a direction to the NHS from the Secretary of State. However, I still believe that greater clarity is needed on what residents of nursing homes can expect to be charged for and how that process will work once free nursing care is implemented next October. The amendment would go some way to achieving that and would make it clear that a multi-disciplinary assessment has to take place. At this rather late stage--this is our last chance--I hope that the Minister can go some way to alleviate our concerns on how free nursing care will operate in practice and will assure us that some specific healthcare needs, such as continence equipment, will be included.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I shall speak briefly but with huge enthusiasm in support of the amendment. My noble friend Lady Masham made a powerful case, particularly in relation to continence pads and paper sheets. As any paraplegic knows, they are vital and not to be skimped on. I hope that the Minister has engaged in helpful and productive reflection since Report.
	Will the Minister clarify the position regarding pressure relief beds and gastro-nasal tubes, which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and my noble friend Lady Greengross mentioned? I am not sure whether anything can be done about that. Someone in the community would be able to hire a pressure relief bed or mattress. No one in their right mind is going to request a gastro-nasal tube for fun. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, not for the first time, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has brought an important matter to the attention of the House. As always, I have listened carefully to her arguments, particularly about continence pads. While I hope that she will not press her amendment, I recognise the need to respond positively.
	The amendment differs in approach but not in intent from the one that she tabled on Report last week. It would not change or strengthen the responsibility of the NHS to provide equipment. The NHS Act 1977 already imposes a duty to provide a service to meet all reasonable requirements that are appropriate as part of the health service.
	This ground has been well trodden over the past few weeks. We are determined that care in nursing homes should be provided in a way that is consistent with the care provided in residential care homes and people's own homes.
	I recognise the concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, expressed about the bureaucracy surrounding our definition of nursing care and the practical difficulties of ensuring that the care is provided by a nurse at all times. The essential point is that an NHS nurse will be involved in a multi-disciplinary assessment of a person's needs before they enter a nursing home. That assessment will provide the information to allow a decision to be made about the setting in which care can be provided and to develop a care plan.
	If a person needs to be in a nursing home with some care provided by a registered nurse, the assessment and care plan will allow the NHS to determine the amount of care that they need to receive from a registered nurse. The NHS will then arrange and fund that level of care from a registered nurse within the nursing home. The NHS will ensure that the nursing home where the person will be living can supply the registered nurse input needed. If the person has some specialist nursing needs, the NHS may arrange for them to be provided by visits from specialist NHS nurses.
	The NHS will contract with the nursing home for a certain level of service as part of the care package provided by the home. Residents who are responsible for paying their own fees will pay a sum that takes account of the NHS' financial contribution to their care. There is no intention to charge residents based on time sheets or other bureaucratic processes. The NHS will monitor the nursing care that the person receives through the contract with the nursing home. The National Care Standards Commission will ensure that the home has adequately qualified staff and the correct staffing levels to deliver individuals' care plans.
	Reassessment will take place three months after placement in the home and then not less than annually, although reassessment will be needed when there has been serious illness or some other change in circumstances. Those triggers for reassessment will be outlined in the guidance to the NHS. Reassessment will be needed to change the funding provided by the health service.
	I recognise that, as the noble Baroness said last week, the current guidance to the NHS on the provision of incontinence supplies in nursing homes is not consistent with provision in other settings. As I said at the outset, we are determined to bring consistency to the NHS services available in nursing homes by the implementation of practical policies where responsibility is clear and not muddled.
	I am pleased to be able to respond positively to the amendment by saying that the Government have decided that continence pads and other continence equipment should be made available free to those currently paying the cost of their care in nursing homes. Continence services will therefore be available on the same basis as nursing care, subject to a full assessment of the individual's needs. There will be consistency across the NHS provision for continence pads in all settings.
	I stress that the provision of continence pads and other equipment in nursing homes by the NHS does not require primary legislation, but merely a direction to the NHS to take on that responsibility. I assure your Lordships that we shall issue the necessary directions. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will not press her amendment.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to thank the Minister for that positive reply. Many people will be relieved by it. This may seem a small aspect of health to many, but it can become a very big one and can help with the prevention of infection, which the Minister knows that I am interested in.
	I am pleased by the Minister's response. I have been campaigning on the issue for many years. The Chief Whip campaigned with me many years ago, before most of your Lordships were in the House. The Minister's answer is very satisfactory. It appears in Hansard, so we can quote it in future if nursing homes do not know about it. I hope that the Government will make their policy clear so that it goes to every health authority in the country.
	Will the Minister answer the question that my noble friend Lady Darcy asked about nasal feeding tubes?

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: And pressure relief beds.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, obviously we will be happy to discuss the direction that we give to the NHS. My understanding is that the definition of continence equipment includes catheters, sheaths, leg bags, other drainage bags, re-usable seat pads and bed pads.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Greengross: moved Amendment No. 8:
	After Clause 57, insert the following new clause--
	"LIABILITY OF RELATIVES
	(1) The National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) Sections 42 (Liability to maintain wife, husband or children) and 43 (Recovery of cost of assistance from persons liable for maintenance) shall cease to have effect.
	(3) In section 48(3) (Duty of councils to provide temporary protection for property of persons admitted to hospital etc) omit the words "or from any person who for the purposes of this Act is liable to maintain him".
	(4) In section 51(1) (Failure to maintain) omit the words "or any person whom he is liable to maintain for the purposes of this Act".
	(5) In section 56(1) (Legal proceedings) omit the words "other than a sum due under an order made under section 43 of this Act".
	(6) In Schedule 6 (Transitional provisions) omit paragraph 19.
	(7) The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (c. 22) shall be amended as follows.
	(8) In section 46(5) (Burial and cremation) omit the words "or from any person who for the purposes of the National Assistance Act 1948 was liable to maintain the deceased person immediately before his death".
	(9) The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42) shall be amended as follows.
	(10) In Schedule 1 (Enactments Conferring Functions Assigned to Social Services committees) for the words "Sections 43 to 45 in column 1" substitute "Section 45"."

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, your Lordships are well aware of my desire to protect spouses at one of the most distressing times in their lives--when their partner enters care--from being landed with what can be large bills for the partner's care, even when they are not wealthy themselves.
	I do not need to repeat the arguments that I presented at earlier stages, save to say that I do not believe that the cost would be high. It would be well under the £10 million quoted by the Minister on Report; nor do I believe that there is read-across to child support legislation. Nevertheless, I understand the Minister's concerns about the potential cost and, indeed, about the principle itself.
	As your Lordships know, most local authorities do not pursue liable relatives. Of course, I do not want to encourage those that do not to start doing so. However, by the same token, I should like to do more to encourage local authorities that charge liable relatives to think twice about the impact of that on the spouse. After a lifetime of caring, it can be most distressing to find oneself suddenly presented with a bill for something that one was already doing free of charge and would continue to do if it were possible.
	As I indicated on Report, I estimate that currently only some 300 spouses are affected by this rule, but it is pernicious. At this late hour, I still hope that the Minister can meet my concern, at least, part of the way.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, again, I support my noble friend enthusiastically. As the Minister listened to and reflected so well upon the views of one noble friend, I hope that he may have reflected yet again and come up trumps in respect of my other noble friend.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, in the course of the debates on this Bill, many issues have involved fundamental divides. This amendment concerns the question of costs--both the immediate cost of £10 million, quoted by the Minister, and the question of whether there is a read-across.
	Leaving read-across to one side, it is sad that at Third Reading we are still unclear as to the facts on this matter. The Minister gave a figure of £10 million; the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, argued strongly that the figure was very much lower. Whatever the fate of this amendment, I hope that the factual basis for policy on this issue will be resolved through direct meetings between those who produce the Minister's costings and those who advise the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
	I believe that the matter could be dealt with through guidance. If it should transpire there will be no cost, no change to the legislation will be required; if the cost is high, no doubt Ministers will have to take that into account in deciding future public expenditure priorities. I do not believe that the way to deal with the matter is by forcing through a vote tonight. However, I hope that a sympathetic examination of the costings will be made and that the Minister will respond accordingly if it should transpire that his fear about cost does not correspond with an objective analysis of the matter.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall try to respond positively. Under Sections 42 and 43 of the National Assistance Act 1948, councils can ask married partners to contribute to the residential care cost of their spouse where the spouse's contribution from his or her own income or assets, as determined by the means test for residential care, is not sufficient to cover care home fees. The amendment would prevent councils seeking such contributions.
	In our debates in Committee and on Report, I acknowledged that we are aware of the difficulties caused by the operation of the liable relatives rule in respect of residential care and of the distress that can be caused to a small number of residents and their husbands or wives at what is already a difficult time. I certainly accept that couples may feel confused that, once their income and assets, including those held jointly, have been assessed fairly and fully by social services, they can be asked to contribute further to the costs of care.
	I believe that the recent excellent report from Age Concern England highlighted those problems. It commented that some social service departments can bring considerable pressure to bear on spouses to make a contribution and that, in doing so, may cause considerable distress. It is also apparent that some council officials may not understand the rules of liability and may seek to apply them incorrectly or inappropriately.
	However, the report also made it clear that only a small number of spouses are being pursued for payments by councils and that the majority are not being asked. That is further evidenced by the knowledge that the liable relatives rule is applied patchily over the country.
	In another place the Minister for Health said that he would consider carefully the operation of the liable relatives rule. I commented on that in previous debates. The Government are not willing to accept the amendment. We believe that, where appropriate in cases where the resident has relatively meagre resources, it is right and proper for councils to seek a contribution to care costs when the partner at home is comparatively well off. We believe that residents should look not only to the state for support in those instances but also to their partners.
	At present, many councils apply current guidance and common sense and, as I have already indicated, seek liable relatives contributions from spouses only in relatively few cases. However, I understand the problems that arise when councils apply the rules incorrectly or unsympathetically. I believe that, rather than get rid of the legislation, the best course of action would be to remind councils of current guidance.
	However, in the light of debates in this House and in the light of helpful discussions with Age Concern over the past week, I have decided that we must go further. Therefore, the Government have now decided that new, robust and clear guidance will be developed. It will set out the ground rules covering how and when contributions will be sought. It will remind councils that, when deciding how large a contribution to seek from a liable relative, they should take account of the financial circumstances and normal standard of living involved and should discuss and negotiate a mutually acceptable amount.
	In particular, when cared-for people enter respite care, we shall remind councils to consider fully all the issues before considering what contributions to care cost should be sought from spouses who are substantial and regular carers. Those carers make a terrific contribution to the lives of their loved ones and to the country. We must do everything in our power to recognise that.
	Finally, the guidance will suggest that liaison with the Benefits Agency should be strengthened to ensure that in individual cases only one organisation seeks a liable relatives contribution and not both, as can happen from time to time.
	In bringing assurances to the House, I want to make it clear that the purpose of the guidance will not be to encourage councils to seek more contributions from more relatives; rather, it will be to set out how the rules should be operated in practice. In drafting the guidance, I shall ask my officials to work closely with Age Concern England, the Carers National Association, the Benefits Agency and other leading organisations. I shall ensure that draft versions of the guidance are subject to wide consultation, including with organisations that represent the interests of older people and those in residential care. If all goes to plan, we shall issue the new guidance in September this year. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister's response. Although I should have preferred spouses not to be charged for their partner's care in these limited situations, I am most grateful for the great care and consideration that the Minister has given to the matter. Although, in the scale of the Bill, it is a minor issue, I know that he has taken it seriously. The point is that it is not a minor issue for affected spouses. I welcome what the Minister said about stronger guidance. I also welcome his reassurance that it will not lead to more local authorities charging liable relatives. I believe that the patchy and inconsistent situation that currently exists will be improved. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 59 [Funding by resident etc. of more expensive accommodation]:
	[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
	Clause 65 [Control of patient information]:

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 70, line 13, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

Earl Howe: My Lords, in our earlier debates on this matter, the Government's proposals to control the use of anonymised patient data by pharmaceutical companies elicited deep and abiding concerns in noble Lords on all sides of the House. I have carefully read the Minister's replies in Hansard. He was also good enough to write to me with a clear explanation of the Government's position, for which I thank him. The Third Reading of a Bill is not the occasion on which to again go over all of the arguments in fine detail, and I shall not do so. Nevertheless, I want to pick up some points that the Minister made and set out the reasons why, regrettably, I believe that there is still a considerable distance between us.
	The Minister has set out his stall clearly. The Government are seeking a power to restrict or prohibit the use of anonymised patient data for one principal reason--they fear that anonymised data collected from doctors and pharmacies may be used by pharmaceutical companies to target their products in a precise manner on individual doctors. They fear that such targeted marketing will lead to unnecessary prescribing by doctors and waste NHS resources. They believe that detailed information about individual doctors' prescribing patterns should simply not be accessible to pharmaceutical companies, which, according to the Minister, could deploy their resources to promote medicines in a manner that is less than independent and impartial.
	My first response to that view is to say to the Minister that despite all that he said in recent debates and in his letter, he has failed to produce a single piece of evidence to show that such targeted marketing is likely to waste NHS resources. The Government's view runs directly contrary to that of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The MMC concluded in its report two years ago that targeted marketing would prove to be beneficial to the NHS because it would lead to reduced costs and improved choice in medicines. It would reduce costs because targeted marketing is much cheaper than blanket sales campaigns, the costs of which would simply be passed on to the NHS through higher prices. It would improve choice because doctors who are targeted find themselves better informed about alternative treatments.
	Nowhere have the Government come up with reasoned arguments to counter those of the MMC; they simply assert that the MMC is wrong. Their position seems to be that providing doctors with information and choice is bound to lead to an unnecessary ratcheting up of costs. In fact, a great deal of pharmaceutical promotion emphasises the benefits of using cheaper alternatives to the products that a doctor currently prescribes. That is one way in which pharmaceutical companies compete. The right kind of targeted marketing is aimed at GPs who prescribe poorly, inefficiently or wastefully and it can identify postcode rationing and over-costly prescribing. Those approaches are valuable to the NHS, so why stop them?
	Not all medicines that are promoted by pharmaceutical companies are cheap. As the Minister rightly said in his letter to me, innovative medicines are almost invariably more expensive than the average. However, what should we conclude from that? Does it suggest that doctors should not be informed by manufacturers of any new products at all? Surely not. Should we be surprised that some new treatments are more expensive than average? Again, surely not. Indeed, the Minister commented in his letter on the fact that new medicines tend to be more expensive. He said:
	"I do not wish to imply that there is anything wrong or unexpected in this, though there is always scope for argument about just how much more it is reasonable to pay for innovation".
	I agree that there is a legitimate debate to be had on cost-effectiveness but that is surely why the Government set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The Government appear to be saying that NICE on its own is not sufficient. They appear to think that pharmaceutical companies are hell-bent on selling over-priced and expensive medicines and that doctors cannot be relied on to be discerning about the marketing material that drug companies direct at them. Most doctors would be aghast at the suggestion and incredulous about it.
	I repeat that there is no evidence for the Government's position--the evidence all points the other way. There are already powerful incentives for doctors to adhere to central prescribing advice and there are penalties for not doing so. The ability to enforce that advice has also been strengthened. The recommendations of the national service frameworks are incorporated into the core PMS contract and are to be included in the new national contract. The new £100 million incentive fund will be divided up in part according to performance against such standards. In other words, the Government are not without weapons in their armoury to deal with what they see as inappropriate prescribing. It is not necessary to force the NHS to operate inefficiently by starving it of information. If one does that, one is bound to slow down the adoption of new and cheaper competitor products, which could save the NHS money.
	The irony of the situation is that Ministers still do not know exactly how they wish to use the power that the clause would confer on them. They do not know because officials have already admitted to the Select Committee and in correspondence that their knowledge of what pharmaceutical companies do when collecting information is limited. It is only when regulations are made that Ministers will find out whether they are inadvertently doing things that they do not want to do. To say, "We don't know what is going on but we do not like the smell of it, and we are therefore going to ban it", is no basis whatever on which to frame legislation.
	That returns me to the points that I made on Report. Before being asked to consider such important provisions we should have the relevant draft regulations before us and the industry should be formally consulted, but neither of those steps has been taken. During the entire proceedings of the pharmaceutical industry competitiveness taskforce the clause was not once mentioned by Ministers or officials. In light of all the Government's pronouncements about undying partnership with the industry, that was an extraordinary omission. The ABPI told me that in its view it should be possible to reach an agreement with the Government. It does not like having a gun held to its head, which is what would effectively happen if the subsections were enacted.
	I say to the Minister, as I said on Report, "Why the hurry?". We should withdraw the two subsections and use the group that has already been established to look at cost-effectiveness to sort out the issue. That body could also examine existing legislation and the codes of conduct that govern the promotion of medicines and, once agreement has been reached, come back to Parliament as necessary. That would be the proper way to proceed. I hope that the Minister will realise how seriously the industry takes the issue. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it might be helpful if I inform noble Lords that I shall not seek to resist the noble Earl's amendment.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as one of those who put my name to the amendment I say three cheers to that. Wisdom has at last prevailed, although it has taken, to put it bluntly, a hell of a lot of pushing and shoving. The Minister has seen sense at last.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I should make a few remarks explaining my position. I do not agree with much of the analysis made in criticism of the clause as it is currently drafted. I certainly do not agree that it would threaten any of the essential interests of the pharmaceutical industry, to which I remain as committed and supportive as ever.
	I made it clear on Report that we have no intention of stopping the use of long-standing databases which are used for both marketing and research purposes. I do not believe that research interests would be threatened by these provisions. I still remain concerned about the potential effect on the NHS of the use by the pharmaceutical industry of information about prescriptions issued by a number of GPs in small, local areas or by individual GPs. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I do not accept the MMC analysis, but I am sure that noble Lords will be grateful if I do not respond to that in ever-loving detail.
	The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has said that it is prepared to have serious discussions about our concerns provided these provisions are withdrawn from the Bill. I made it clear on Report that we are committed to working with the industry to see if we can reach agreement on what use may be made of NHS information for marketing purposes. It is in that context that I do not ask the House to resist the noble Earl's amendments. I do not underestimate the challenge faced in ensuring that that agreement is reached. I recall previous pharmaceutical price regulation schemes which were not backed up by powers we now have in the Health Act, where companies were prepared to disregard an agreement reached with the industry.
	We face a challenge to reach an agreement which is acceptable to both sides and one which will stick. But I take notice of the assurances given by the pharmaceutical companies over the past few weeks about their future action in regard to the use of information on doctors' prescribing habits. In light of the assurances given by the companies, we are willing, in good faith, to enter into discussions. They can show in those discussions how they will act responsibly in this regard. We enter into those discussions on the understanding that we will not hesitate to take action, including legislation, should that prove necessary in the future to protect the NHS and its clinicians from unacceptable commercial pressure.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should say that it is not only the pharmaceutical angle which is involved in this wide clause. Can the Minister give a commitment that in the consultations he mentioned he will include the medical charities? They use this information just as much as the pharmaceutical companies.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government stand as ready as ever to consult as widely as possible, though we disagree with the assertion that medical research would have been inhibited by the introduction of subsections (1) and (2). But if the medical research organisations feel that there are issues we should consider in relation to this matter, I shall be happy to meet with them.

Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend may well be wise to agree to these amendments, but I understood the reason for putting the provisions forward.
	I was surprised by the enormous amount of briefing material I received from pharmaceutical companies on these two subsections. When I receive a large volume of briefing material I begin to think, perhaps "the lady doth protest too much"; that they have a certain axe to grind. As a former general practitioner I know only too well the pressure the pharmaceutical industry puts on doctors through their representatives--often very charming and intelligent people. That is often the only information doctors have readily available in relation to the latest drugs because they are not all avid readers of the medical journals.
	I understand that this may not have been the best way of dealing with this matter. But it is reasonable to think that information gathered from pharmacists for the express purpose of marketing is something about which the Government should be legitimately concerned. I am glad that discussions with the industry will continue after the Bill is passed.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that helpful and welcome response. It comes as an enormous surprise. However, I am truly delighted that he is willing to remove these subsections from the Bill. That is a reflection not only of the Minister's ability to listen to representations made to him, but also of his close understanding of the industry and of the climate within it, not least the climate of good will that I believe exists to strive to reach agreement.
	I shall spend no more time on this issue, other than to ask the Minister, with the leave of the House, one question by way of clarification. It relates to subsection (3) of Clause 65. Am I right in supposing, as I hope I am, that the regulation of the access to anonymous data by pharmaceutical companies could not be achieved by exercising the power in subsection (3) "for medical purposes", given that "medical purposes" include the management of health and social care services? Can the Minister put my mind at rest and confirm that that part of the clause will not be used as a substitute for the powers contained in subsections (1) and (2)?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that relates to the second part of the clause which we shall come on to discuss later and certainly will not be used as a means of implementing the first two parts by the back door.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That question was prompted by an outside body. It will be grateful for his answer. I thank him once again for everything he had to say. We must all now look forward to a satisfactory resolution of these issues during the weeks ahead. I commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 70, line 38, after "purposes" insert "when it is not reasonably practicable to obtain valid consent and"

Earl Howe: My Lords, in anticipation of the amendments to this clause which the Minister will shortly be moving, let me acknowledge immediately that those changes, as far as they go, represent welcome progress. I am in no doubt that this clause will be strengthened by adding an explicit provision for a statutory advisory committee on the face of the Bill.
	That said, I am equally clear that, in the context of the powers proposed under this clause, the degree of progress that we are going to make today is extremely limited. I should like to take us back, if I may, to square one. One of the fundamental principles of professional medical practice is that of patient confidentiality. That principle is enshrined in GMC guidance. It is also a legal right for patients. Common law, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 all safeguard patient privacy.
	The law means that, wherever possible, patients should have control of medical information about themselves and that doctors must respect that right. In 1998 doubts were raised on the legality of supplying named patient data to cancer registries in the light of current law. Over the next two years, following consultations and further legal advice, the Government accepted that there was a real issue to be addressed. The GMC could not advise doctors to break the law. The logical outcome was that only Parliament could decide in what circumstances patients rights to confidentiality should be breached. That is the background to the part of Clause 68 that we are now considering.
	Let me say straightaway that I am entirely sympathetic to the objective of safeguarding both cancer registries and other research-based activities which are clearly essential for the protection of patients, and the public. I understand the Government's position on this as I understand that of the GMC. There is a legal difficulty which has to be sorted out. Where I part company with the Government is in the way that they have chosen to set about doing this.
	In this clause we have an almost ludicrously broad permissive power which effectively transfers responsibility for healthcare privacy from doctors to the Secretary of State for Health. Ministers have repeatedly assured us that they understand the need to protect patient rights and to stand by the fundamental principle of informed patient consent for any disclosures of personal medical data. However, their actions, as evidenced by this clause, are diametrically opposite.
	Nowhere in the clause is there mention of informed consent or proportionality. The model of patients as shareholders and customers of the NHS, much espoused by this Government, is absent. Instead we have literally the language of expediency and the well-worn phrase "in the public interest". The whole starting point of the clause is therefore wrong.
	Earlier I referred to alarm and dismay in medical circles on what this clause contains. Much of that concern could have been avoided if first there had been proper public consultation and, secondly, if the intended uses of the powers and the basis on which they would be used had been included on the face of the Bill.
	Amendments have been made to the clause by the Government, which are undoubtedly welcome. But we are still left with a sweeping power to breach patient confidentiality; a power that depends for the circumstances of its use on the wishes of the Secretary of State. The most disturbing long-term consequence of using the powers proposed in the clause, especially subsection (4)(c), is that it will destabilise public trust in medical confidentiality. When confidentiality is compromised it has a knock-on effect on trust. A shift in the relationship of trust between patients and their doctors, nurses and therapists will lead to one thing: patients who go to their doctor will no longer be open with them. It is that openness which underpins the quality of patient care, clinical governance and, ultimately, medical research.
	If the clause is passed into law in its present form, with or without a statutory advisory committee, it will cause irreparable damage to the relationship of trust between clinicians and their patients. Never mind that there are "ifs" and "buts" and affirmative resolution procedures. The mere existence of this power, not to mention the exercise of it, will start the rot. Once doctors and nurses have ceased to be the guardians of the most private information that any of us possess, and once that guardianship has been transferred to a politician in Whitehall, you no longer have a system that will command public trust. That is a process that we should not even countenance.
	Why is it that the Government, with over a year of their mandate still to run, are rushing through this measure? Why is it that they are trying to pressurise us into swallowing whole this hugely significant change in the law when they have not even conducted a basic consultation exercise? I was amazed to hear the other day that the Data Protection Commissioner had not formally been consulted on these proposals. Once again we hear the cry from Ministers, "Trust us; we will not abuse these powers". I say again that that is not an argument. However much we may trust Ministers and their undertakings--I trust the Minister implicitly--these are powers which Ministers in a future government could in theory exploit for their own purposes. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us so powerfully last week, sweeping, general powers such as these make bad law.
	Those are the reasons why I am deeply disturbed by the clause as currently drafted. We should not allow it to go through as it stands. We should say to the Government, "Withdraw it; reconsider; consult and in due course come back to Parliament with a clause that is specific and clear. But when you do that, please let us see exactly what we are signing-up to."
	The Government have resisted all calls to do that. That is why I propose in this amendment that we should hold them to their word. We should ensure that this clause, and the power conferred under it, takes as its starting point the central principal of informed patient consent. We should insist that the power to transfer responsibility for patient privacy to the Secretary of State should be exercised only where it is not practicable or reasonable to obtain the consent of patients. Indeed, no regulation on the exercise of the power should be made unless the possibility of informed consent has been excluded. I believe that that is the minimum for which we should be looking as we see these worrying provisions pass into law. Not long ago, the Secretary of State for Health said that the patient is king. My reply to him now is, "Prove that you mean it". I beg to move.

Lord Rea: My Lords, I moved the same amendment in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke extremely eloquently to it. I do not wish to say anything which would spoil the effect of his very sincere statement. I believe in his strong emphasis on valid consent being obtained wherever possible.
	The amendment allows the Secretary of State to overrule that sacred trust in only very special circumstances. The amendment needs to be taken in conjunction with what comes after; that is the statutory patient information committee, which will form the main part of this debate. However, it may well be that this amendment should also be included as an extra safeguard.

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am anxious not to sour the good spirits which have existed throughout Third Reading. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has listened and amended parts of the Bill. However, I am totally opposed to this clause.
	In the course of the Bill we have amended a great many of the proposals put forward by the Government regarding systems and delivery of care. This is the one clause that goes far beyond that. It is not about delivery; it is an ethical issue of huge importance.
	It is interesting to look at the way in which the clause was introduced. Prior to Second Reading, in his usual thoughtful way, the Minister sent a letter to all Peers who he thought would be interested, which set out the different clauses of the Bill. Omitted were the last two; that is, the one we have just discussed and the one we are presently discussing. That was a signal to us that the clauses were not part of the NHS Plan but were tacked on by opportunists; civil servants or Ministers who felt that here was a vehicle they could use for this purpose. As a result, as my noble friend said, we have had no consultation with the medical profession, other professions or the public. I was interested to hear him say that even the Data Protection Commissioner has not been consulted. I find that surprising. This Government have so often told us that they listen, involve patients and desire to be open and transparent. I have no doubt that it will not be long before we have a class action on this clause because it does not comply with the Data Protection Act or the Human Rights Act.
	Perhaps I may refer to a survey which has been conducted since Report stage. It is an online survey commissioned by the Patients Association. I believe that it is relevant to raise this matter here as no consultation has taken place. The survey was of 646 doctors, health professionals and patients. According to the media press release, it found that:
	"The Government's plan posed a grave danger both to medical privacy and to health research. Eighty-six per cent of those surveyed were strongly opposed to the proposals, compared with only 1 per cent who supported or strongly supported the measure".
	The attitudes expressed in that survey are very interesting:
	"This is a totalitarian measure and needs opposing at all cost ... This Government has done more to undermine privacy than any other non-fascist Government this century. It has to stop ... This must be stopped. It represents a fundamental shift towards state control and intervention rivalling Nazi proportions ... The UK is becoming a police state. Civil liberties are being eroded at a phenomenal rate".
	And so it goes on.
	Noble Lords will be aware of the quotation from Pastor Martin Neimoellen, who said:
	"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists"--

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she reflect on whether remarks of that kind do not diminish the horror and evil of Nazism and the Holocaust, debasing the dignity of the individual and creates an unfair stain on a government acting in good faith?

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in no way do I want to diminish that. In fact, I was going on to say that I was sure the Minister would say that I protest too much. I can understand that but I wanted to share with your Lordships the tremendous concern that is coming through surveys such as this.
	I want to endorse what my noble friend said about the trust between doctors and patients. There have been letters in The Times only this week on that particular issue. Doctors say that they will no longer give information if they feel that a patient's consent is not sacrosanct.
	But what is even more interesting is what was said by Sir Donald Irvine, President of the General Medical Council, in his Lloyd Roberts lecture. In his conclusion, he said:
	"As doctors, our foremost ethical duty is to serve our patients and the community to the best of our ability. The same duty falls on politicians and managers, even if their ethical codes are a little less well defined. We have to start respecting and understanding each other's values and motivators. We may then begin to trust each other. It is trust on which so much depends".
	So I believe that the trust between the doctor and the patient is paramount, but so is the trust between doctors and politicians. I believe that the Minister and this Government, in taking these powers, are demeaning and reducing that trust between doctors and politicians, which is so crucial if we are to deliver a health service that is effective and valued by everyone.

Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may say what a convincing and powerful case the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made for the amendment. Judging by the enormous number of representations that have been made to me and the meeting held in the Moses Room some weeks ago, I know that he echoes public opinion.
	It is a modest compromise amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it, bearing in mind in particular that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, with his great experience, supports it from his side of the House.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, the second half of Clause 65 is about confidential patient information. It is about the balance between the individual's right to confidentiality against the public interest and the need to collect information for public health reasons and the disease registries. We realise that this is a fast-developing area and one to which we shall need to return. We all agree that the premise from which we start must be that patient information should be confidential, as this amendment implies.
	However, we are equally clear that human rights legislation does not regard this as an absolute right and the Data Protection Registrar recognises that. Precisely how the balance is to be struck will be properly explored by the statutory advisory committee which we shall discuss later. The Human Rights Act and the courts are there to defend the balance between the patient's rights and the public interest. I am frankly astonished that the debate which has developed here has been attached to an amendment the substance of which is already in the clause. Somehow we have to keep in balance the difficult issues we are addressing here but somehow that has been lost in what has been said today.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should declare a professional interest in that I appeared as amicus curiae instructed by the General Medical Council, in the Source Informatics case. It was a case about the balance between personal privacy and freedom of expression. Although I have appeared for the GMC this very afternoon in the Privy Council, perhaps I may make it clear that what I am about to say I say for myself and not on anyone else's behalf.
	I agree with what my noble friend has said. I want to spell it out in clear terms and explain exactly how this clause is to be interpreted under the Human Rights Act. First, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act would require the Secretary of State, doctors and courts where possible to read and give effect to Clause 65(3) in a way that is compatible with the basic right to personal privacy, including the doctrine of informed patient consent, of course balanced in accordance with the principle of proportionality against other facets of the public interest.
	Secondly, Section 6 of the Human Rights Act imposes an obligation on all public authorities, including the Secretary of State, first, to satisfy the positive obligation on this country to protect personal privacy against abuse, including any unnecessary interference. If the regulations that are made under the clause were incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because they did not strike a fair balance between personal privacy, including the principle of informed patient consent, and other facets of the public interest, the courts could declare the regulations to be beyond the powers conferred by the clause. The Government are to be congratulated on having promoted a Human Rights Act which gives fully effective safeguards against abuse.
	I am all in favour of writing specific safeguards on to the face of primary legislation if it is necessary to do so in order to avoid the necessity for litigation and for lawyers such as myself to have to bring cases in court. That is a highly desirable thing to do. But by writing in the kind of language proposed in the amendment, one is not providing a balanced safeguard. The balanced safeguard will in the end be provided by the Secretary of State, or if he or she gets it wrong it will ultimately be decided by the courts themselves.
	For those reasons, as well as those given by my noble friend, I would be opposed to the amendment.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, much of the debate has focused on the needs of patients and the protection of their rights and confidence against the needs of researchers. We talk of striking the right balance, as though they are at opposite poles, one versus the other.
	Yet we know that that is not the case. There is a clear mutuality of interest here. If we examine who seems to speak for the patients we find that it is the media, patient representative groups, Department of Health officials, politicians and Members of your Lordships' House. But do we really know what patients want? All these groups, quite rightly, act as lightning conductors for those with concerns of one kind or another, which is a considerable virtue, but it is easy for them and us to get a very distorted view.
	It may sound like anecdote if I say that over 30 or more years in clinical practice I have seen thousands of patients and I believe that I have a feel for what they want. They appear to want research done which will help them, and they would be dismayed if that was inhibited. That is not just my view. If one takes virtually any category of disease, whether it be cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental disorders or Alzheimer's, one finds patient self-help groups or fund-raising charities, most of which raise money for research. They are not small subsets of the population. If one considers all the patients who suffer from those diseases, with their families and carers, and adds them together one has almost the entire population. They are the real patient representatives--the patients themselves. It is clear that when they voice a view they favour research. It is in their, and our, interest that the type of research of which we have been speaking should be pursued. I shall not reiterate the examples that I have given in previous debates in your Lordships' House.
	My reason for saying that is that there has been a flurry of publicity by way of e-mails--we have all received letters and the like--to suggest that patients will be damaged and the doctor-patient relationship destroyed by the betrayal of patient confidence which the Secretary of State will perpetuate with these new-found powers. Even if we had a Secretary of State with that evil intent and he or she wished to engage so foolishly in an obvious vote-losing exercise of that kind--I hasten to add that I do not believe we have such a person at the moment--the constraints in this Bill, the conditions which have to be fulfilled, the safeguards in place, the patient advisory committee, which is now likely to be on the face of the Bill, and the strict regulations seem to me to be not only sufficient but somewhat excessive. As I mentioned in previous debates, I am concerned that they are so robust as effectively to inhibit any research being put forward.
	I am convinced that we need this clause because potentially it will allow the pursuit of the types of research which use data collected in the past which cannot possibly now harm or embarrass patients. In the absence of the clause, this type of research would not be possible. I am already aware of several examples of such research which has now been stopped, and that cannot do anyone any good. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that when I spoke to the data protection registrar she was strongly in favour of the clause.
	Finally, I look forward to reassurance from the Minister that the processing of applications will not be so difficult or inhibitory as effectively to prevent the research that this clause is intended to allow.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lady Northover has hit nails on the head with a precision which I hope I may be forgiven in this company for describing as surgical. The Minister is aware that I have expressed considerable concerns about the clause. In the light of his extremely generous concession about Amendment No. 10 and Amendment No. 13 tabled in his name, the question of whether the Minister has produced for us half a loaf is one for mathematicians. I am no mathematician, but, in the spirit of good will that the Minister has done so much to engender by what he has done today, I am content to take that as amounting to half a loaf.
	I still have considerable concerns about the method of drafting this clause which, as the Minister knows, are very much oblique to some of the concerns expressed already but in no way incompatible with them. That question is one which stretches much wider than this Bill. Before we leave the subject, will the Minister agree to communicate to those responsible for parliamentary counsel the concern which has been expressed about this general method of drafting of clauses to give undefined and extremely open-minded vires? I believe that that is a general question. If what we have done in this Bill means that in future fewer such clauses are tabled in this House that will be a very real gain.
	As to the immediate matter of the amendment, the key point is the one made by my noble friend Lady Northover; namely, that the right of confidentiality is not absolute but contingent. We have here a conflict between right and right. The need for confidentiality is real and important; the need for progress in understanding and fighting disease is also real and important. Certain cases have been mentioned in which research can be done without the use of confidential data. Take, for example, the two reports which appeared last week on alleged clusters of cancer near Oldbury and Berkeley power stations. I understand that those pieces of work are controversial. Being no expert in the subject, I express no opinion on whether they are justified, but clearly they must be checked. I do not understand how they can be checked without the ability to collect a list of all the cancer cases in those areas. I am not convinced that we have found the right way between the conflict of right and right.
	I was most pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Northover say that we must revisit this subject. I hope that the Minister can find his way to agree with that. We have here a real problem, and I am not sure that we have a solution to it. I am not sure that the amendment offers a better solution. Therefore, I should like to hear an agreement on all hands that we have to find better ways to deal with this matter and we shall continue to think about it.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, really put his finger on it when he said that the debate was an argument between right and right. I very much admire the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, but I believe that she got it wrong. All of those who have taken part in the debate have a genuine view to express, and the differences as to how we should proceed are evident. It has been very difficult to reach a conclusion which enables us to safeguard, as far as possible, patient interest but also allows important clinical projects and programmes to continue. I believe that everyone who has taken part in the debate has a valid point to put across, and it is in that spirit that I respond to the amendment.
	I fully accept that there is genuine concern about the powers in subsection (3) of the clause. The clause will allow us to achieve two objectives: first, patients will receive more information about their clinical care; and. secondly, the continued operation of essential services that currently rely upon patient-identifiable information will be safeguarded.
	On the question of consent, I am sure that all noble Lords are agreed that the fundamental principle governing the use of patient information by any part of the NHS or the research community is informed consent. But we must also accept that patient information is absolutely crucial and is a precious and irreplaceable resource, for example, in the fight against cancer. Historically, for decades the NHS has enjoyed the privilege of using that resource. We have made tremendous progress because of it, particularly in support of public health and medical research. That has been done in the absence of the informed consent of patients, and it is clear that that cannot continue. It is also clear that over the years the medical professions have assumed that privilege.
	With the best of intentions, the NHS has had a tradition for paternalism where much of what is done in the name of science or research relies on the implied consent of patients, but that implied consent has been pushed too far. We saw that example at Alder Hey. There the issue was human organ retention. We see it in many places where confidential patient information is currently used. The most important lesson to be learnt from Alder Hey is that patients' trust will be lost if we fail to forge new relationships based on informed consent. However, the key issue we face is that the NHS is ill equipped to deliver informed consent overnight. We need a transitional facility to enable essential work to continue as we move to informed consent. We are not supporting the status quo; nor is it intended that the power can be used whenever there are problems with obtaining consents.
	The General Medical Council has recognised the magnitude of the changes needed, both in the technical systems used by the NHS and in the scale of cultural change. Again, as on Report, I pay tribute to the work of the GMC on this matter. We face an enormous task, and traditional practice must change. A detailed assessment of current use of patient information needs to be completed to confirm whether it is appropriate to rely on implied consent where we need to do far more to obtain patients' consent and where alternatives, such as the use of anonymised information, can be developed.
	The fundamental principle of informed consent is right. We are taking action to deliver it. But in the meantime we have to ensure the continued flow of patient information to some critical areas to protect the interests of the public and individual patients.
	During the passage of the Bill I received much correspondence about the need for this clause. Sir Richard Doll and Sir Richard Peto of the Clinical Trials Service wrote:
	"It is, we believe, important for the future health of the people in this country that a legislative framework should exist that ensures that public health surveillance and medical research can continue".
	The breadth of the power sought has been the root of concerns expressed in this House. I fully accept that if such a power did not operate with effective safeguards the potential for misuse might well undermine the trust between patients and the NHS.
	The safeguards we have put in place are robust. They have satisfied the Information Commissioner who had been a vocal critic of how the NHS handles confidential information in other contexts. Perhaps I may recall the safeguards: first, the power to set aside the need for patient consent can be used only for medical purposes that are in the interests of improving patient care or in the public interest; secondly, and crucially, the clause cannot be used to require the processing of confidential patient information if the medical purpose can be satisfied in any other reasonable practical way.
	As promised to the House earlier, I have assembled a working group drawn from patient and professional representation, including the GMC, the BMA, the Academy of Royal Colleges and the Medical Research Council. I have invited them to work up proposals for an expert advisory committee whose role would be to apply the test I have described to all applications for the use of patient information where consent is to be overridden. We shall come to the statutory advisory committee in a secondary debate.
	Without Clause 65 we would inhibit the ability of the NHS to continue vital work. However, an equally distressing loss, on which I have not dwelt, is the right of those patients who want it to receive important information, particularly correspondence about their treatment and care.
	I recognise that in part the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in moving Amendment No. 11, has found an ingenious way to have a clause stand part debate at Third Reading. But, in responding briefly to Amendment No. 11, I say to the noble Earl that I consider that Clause 65(5) makes it clear that,
	"Regulations under subsection (3) may not make provision requiring the process of confidential patient information for any purpose if it would be reasonably practicable to achieve that purpose otherwise than pursuant to such regulations, having regard to the cost of and the technology available for achieving that purpose".
	I believe that that meets the concerns of the noble Earl.
	Perhaps I may finally respond to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He often invites Ministers to take up matters with parliamentary counsel. I am happy to discuss that matter with him. I also accept his offer. In the difficult way that we have had to tackle this matter and bring this clause to the House I recognise that there is an ongoing debate. I reassure the noble Earl that we see these as transitional arrangements, but we are anxious to continue the dialogue to make sure that they are as effective as possible and overridingly serve the public interest.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. This is certainly one of the most difficult and worrying issues that the House has debated in a long time. The Minister emphasised many expected points. But he has not persuaded me that the clause is anything other than a coach and horses driving through the established order of medical ethics.
	In Committee, I described these proposals as the "sovietisation of British medicine". I still believe that that is an appropriate description. The Government have already made moves to implement the provisions of the clause. Information groups in general practice and hospital trusts have been directed to work on protocols on the sharing of patients' records with social services, private sector nursing homes and even the police, without the patients' consent. The rationale is that these developments are needed in order to provide so-called seamless care.
	The campaign to sell this issue to the public is to be conducted under the slogan, "You can tell your doctor anything". Yes, one can tell one's doctor anything, providing one does not mind to whom he is forced to pass it on. The fact that the medical profession, as represented by the BMA and other bodies, is deeply opposed to the clause, should highlight for us the appalling dilemma in which it will be placed when in due course it finds itself obliged to obey the law and in so doing infringes the ethical principles it holds sacred.
	My noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to the recent survey by the Patients Association and other patients' groups. It shows overwhelming opposition to the Government's proposals. Over 90 per cent of those surveyed believed that the legal powers in the Bill should not be created; and an overwhelming percentage of doctors said that they would either refuse to use any system provided by government that endangers confidentiality or intentionally reduces the amount of data they placed on such a system.
	If doctors started a trend of protecting patient privacy by keeping data off government computers, in no time at all the lifeblood of the research community would be cut off. I hope the Minister is in no doubt of the anxiety felt by doctors and patient groups about the clause. My amendment was designed to highlight those concerns. Obviously, I take note of what the Minister said about the provisions in subsection (5), which appear to make the amendment unnecessary. But I make no apology for using the amendment to highlight deep concerns of principle. If I had been able to do so under the rules of Third Reading, I would have sought to persuade your Lordships that the clause should be deleted and that the Government should go back to the drawing board. Regrettably, however, that is not possible.
	The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, spoke of what patients want. I respect the wishes and needs of the research community, but I am not sure whether the inevitably subjective viewpoint of special interest groups should be allowed to obscure or override a major issue of principle. I am surprised that the noble Lord should brush that point aside quite as lightly as he appeared to do. The fact is that patients still can and want to be asked--

Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Earl has just described research as a special interest. Does he not agree that the better curing of disease might be better regarded as a general interest?

Earl Howe: My Lords, as ever, the noble Earl finds the right phrase. I have no quarrel with that. My point was a rather broader one. I did not wish in any way to disparage the needs of the research community. I wished only to point out that perhaps it is not fully representative of patients.
	In my experience, patients want to be asked for their data to be put on registers, including cancer registers. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, did not fully make the case against asking for consent. If consent is not the principle on which we proceed, the data flow would continue and researchers would not be inhibited. As I said, I have no quarrel with the need to resolve the important difficulties that the noble Lord mentioned. Cancer registries need to operate. However, as I argued, that is not the point. The point of concern is that there is a very wide-ranging permissive power, the future use of which is unclear. I am deeply uncomfortable with that. It is neither a good model for the purpose, nor a good precedent for the future. I believe that the clause will do damage to patient trust and that the Government will have cause to regret the course that they have chosen. Nevertheless, at Third Reading, and in the light of what the Minister has said, I do not propose to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 71, line 46, at end insert ", to such extent as he considers appropriate in the light of the requirements of section (Patient Information Advisory Group)," .

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the amendments in this group have the effect of creating a further safeguard, a statutory advisory committee, the main function of which will be to consider whether it is appropriate to lay regulations under subsection (3) of Clause 65.
	Following on from our previous debate, I believe that an appropriate balance is set between the duties that rightfully should apply to the Secretary of State and the flexibility that a statutory advisory body for this complex area requires in order to adapt to evolving requirements. The statutory body covered by the amendments will have an important role both in advising on which purposes satisfy those requirements and on overseeing the annual review. It will be able to advise on any obligations or restrictions that should be imposed on those who are permitted access to patient information and on the confidentiality and security standards that should apply.
	The body will have a broad-based membership and will reflect the interests of patients, NHS professionals and the research community. We will be seeking the advice of the General Medical Council and other key bodies on membership. The body will have a difficult job, particularly in the early stages. There is clearly a balance to be struck between the need to give detailed consideration to applications and the need, for example, to avoid a tortuous and bureaucratic process that might stifle research or other work. The body will need to advise, for example, on the groupings of similar applications or types of activity so that they can be dealt with quickly while preserving the safeguard of independent scrutiny that is desired. The Secretary of State will be required to seek and have regard to the views of the body and to publish the advice it provides where that relates to the laying or amendment of regulations. That is in addition to the wider consultation required by the clause involving those likely to be affected by any regulations.
	Finally, draft regulations will be subject to the affirmative process. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured in the knowledge that by the time that happened the regulations would have had the benefit of scrutiny by the committee the amendment sets up. We shall of course ensure that the advice of the committee, when published, is made available in good time to inform debate on proposed regulations.
	I hope that the House will consider that the amendment and the statutory body that will be established will help to ensure that an appropriate balance between the interests of the individual and the requirements of research and public health communities is struck and that the process of using the power operates properly and effectively. I beg to move.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17. When I was given responsibility for this part of the Bill I could see how difficult are the issues involved--the balance between the rights of the patient and the public interest. There was no consensus on the matter and many different organisations and individuals, from medical researchers to patients and doctors, were worried about how to strike that balance. There was widespread agreement that the Secretary of State's powers were too wide in the original clause.
	We put forward the proposal that there should be a statutory advisory committee based on the Social Security Advisory Committee and I am delighted that the Government have accepted the need for such a committee. I very much welcome that. However, I have some concerns about the Minister's proposal which I hope he will be able to address. What we sought to do in our original proposal was to establish an independent committee involving those who are concerned with this area and spanning the various interests in this area which would give advice to the Secretary of State before regulations were laid. All that advice, and not simply a selection of it, should be published and the Secretary of State should be obliged to say where he or she did not intend to take that advice and why that was. Our amendments seek to address those areas.
	Amendment No. 14 states that the Secretary of State should establish the committee,
	"after consultation with relevant organisations".
	It would serve no purpose if this was simply a Department of Health committee and did not seek to reflect and embody the views of those outside government. Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 state that the Secretary of State should give his or her views on the recommendations of the advisory committee so that it can be clearly seen where its advice is not being taken. Amendment No. 16 seeks to remove a phrase about the way the advice of the advisory committee is to be published. At the moment the Bill could simply allow the Secretary of State to publish the advice in a parish newsletter--no wider than that. What remains, if we remove the phrase, makes it clearer that the Secretary of State must publish all views, and not a selection of views, from the advisory committee.
	We commend the amendments to the House. In responding to those many people who felt that the Secretary of State was taking powers that were far too wide and unrestrained, we put forward our earlier amendment. We are delighted that that has in essence been accepted. Our amendments simply seek to close some of the potential loopholes in the Government's proposals. I trust that the Minister may be able to address our concerns.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of Amendments Nos. 14 to 17. I welcome the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 13, subject to the amendments which my noble friend has proposed. My noble friend said that she has based her proposal on the model of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is a good model. It works. The purpose of the amendments, taken individually or collectively, is to make the working of the proposal come as close as possible to that which is already used in the Social Security Advisory Committee.
	The point about consultation is one on which the record of the Social Security Advisory Committee is exemplary, not only in relation to its setting up, which goes back before the beginning of my political memory, but also in relation to its consultation on every individual set of regulations that come before it. At the end of each one of its reports, there is a list of the bodies it has consulted. It has chosen those bodies itself. It has done so with very great care and a very wide range of information and has done so with very great skill. That means that its reports carry a weight greater than they otherwise would.
	Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 deal with the publication of the Secretary of State's opinion. That again brings us to the Social Security Advisory Committee model where the report is published with the Secretary of State's comments on it bound within the same covers. The conjunction of those two aspects serves to focus a debate with great clarity and therefore, among other advantages which might commend it to a busy government, does a great deal to save the time of the House. It narrows down the area of debate and lets us get on.
	That brings me to Amendment No. 16. The new clause states that:
	"The Secretary of State shall publish, in such manner as he considers appropriate".
	There is a faint whiff of Cambyses in those words. A certain amount of suspicion is held within the research community that devotion to freedom of information is not quite Whitehall's favourite cause. A great deal of debate has been held, in which I remember taking part in 1988, about the Secretary of State's right to refuse consent to publication of research material. I am delighted that that is not an issue here and I welcome that warmly in Amendment No. 13. The clause states that the Secretary of State "shall publish".
	However, the middle of this argument needs to be distributed a little further before we leave it. There are cases where occasionally pressure is put on researchers to leave out individual phrases or to leave out concluding sentences or paragraphs; namely, not to give the nail the final tap on the head. On occasions, a report might not be distributed with quite the publicity which one might at other times have wished.
	I recall one particular report from the 1980s on poverty and health. I was out of the country when it was published. The circumstances of its publication were hotly disputed. One of those engaged in that dispute was in the Chamber only a few minutes ago, so I shall take the matter no further, except simply to say that a great deal of dispute arose over whether adequate numbers of copies of that report were published and whether they were made available at the right time. I mention this only to say that that is a theoretical possibility. I express no opinion on what happened on that occasion.
	The phrase,
	"in such manner as he considers appropriate",
	makes the faintly uncomfortable suggestion of leaving that particular door open. I would be a great deal happier if it were shut. For that reason, it gives me pleasure to support all of the amendments tabled by my noble friend.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. In her opening remarks she referred to "balance". In saying that, she got the sense of this debate absolutely right. I can respond very positively to the key points that she made and I acknowledge the work that she undertook in bringing forward the original amendment which, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, implied, was based on the Social Security Advisory Committee model.
	Noble Lords will recall that, while I thought that the working methods of that committee no doubt would inform the practices of the proposed advisory group under consideration today, I felt that the original amendment went into too much detail because it relied on the specific wording relevant to the Social Security Advisory Committee. However, I also accept that her amendments to this new clause seek to probe and clarify what I have put before the House in my own amendment. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy noble Lords that the way in which this will operate will meet the points of concern that have been raised.
	Amendment No. 14 requires relevant organisations to be consulted prior to the committee being established. I have already made it clear that we shall consult with the General Medical Council and other interested bodies such as the BMA, the Medical Research Council, patient organisations and the Association of Medical Research Charities--in deference to my noble friend Lord Turnberg. I have to say that it is difficult for me to envisage how we could possibly seek to establish an effective committee without such consultation. If the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was in his place, no doubt he would echo my thoughts when I say to noble Lords that I think that the Department of Health has a great deal of experience in setting up committees.
	Amendment No. 15 requires the publication of the committee's advice, but that is already required under the terms of subsection (5) of my amendment. It also requires the publication of the Secretary of State's opinion on the advice received. Amendment No. 17 also seeks to achieve this, so I shall deal with that amendment as well. The advice of the committee will be published and Ministers will stand before noble Lords and before Members of another place to explain why regulations are needed. Furthermore, this will have followed a period of consultation with those likely to be affected by the regulations. The views received will be reflected in the advice of the committee and will be published. We have said already that we shall publish the results of such consultation. Indeed, even if we did not, those consulted would undoubtedly do so.
	Amendment No. 16 seeks to remove the discretion of the Secretary of State as regards how the advice of the committee should be published. I must say that the thought that the Department of Health would use only parish magazines to publish its future guidance, advice and general information to the public is intriguing, but I do not think that we shall be going down that path. The only effect of this amendment potentially would be to limit publication to accepted traditional methods by failing to encompass the possibility of electronic and other new mechanisms for conveying information.
	I hope that I shall be able to close any remaining chinks to the satisfaction of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The fact is that the whole debate, conducted over the past three months, has demonstrated that every detail of the operation of these new arrangements will take place in a wholly transparent fashion. That is absolutely right and the Government wish to encourage that. Furthermore, I shall say that, in terms of lessons to be learnt from the Social Security Advisory Committee model, I would be happy to ensure that, in our discussions on the establishment of the new statutory advisory committee, I shall look at the experience of the Social Security Advisory Committee to see whether methods and procedures used by that committee could be usefully incorporated by the new statutory advisory committee.
	On that basis, I support Amendment No. 13 and hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendment No. 13:
	After Clause 65, insert the following new clause--
	"PATIENT INFORMATION ADVISORY GROUP
	(1) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), the Secretary of State shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the passing of this Act, by regulations establish a committee to be known as the Patient Information Advisory Group ("the Advisory Group").
	(2) Before laying before Parliament a draft of any statutory instrument containing regulations under section 65(3), or making any regulations pursuant to section 65(6)(b), the Secretary of State shall seek and have regard to the views of the Advisory Group on the proposed regulations.
	(3) The Secretary of State may seek the views of the Advisory Group on such other matters connected with the processing of patient information or of any information (other than patient information) obtained or generated in the course of the provision of the health service as he considers appropriate.
	(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision as to--
	(a) the persons or bodies who are to be represented by members of the Advisory Group,
	(b) the terms of appointment of members,
	(c) the proceedings of the Advisory Group, and
	(d) the payment by the Secretary of State of--
	(i) such expenses incurred by the Advisory Group, and
	(ii) such allowances in respect of expenses incurred by members of the Advisory Group,
	as he may determine.
	(5) The Secretary of State shall publish, in such manner as he considers appropriate, any views which he receives from the Advisory Group pursuant to subsection (2).
	(6) In this section "the health service", "patient information" and "processing" have the same meaning as they have for the purposes of section 65." .

Baroness Northover: moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 13, Amendment No. 14:
	Line 5, after "committee" insert "after consultation with relevant organisations"

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I welcome the reassurances given by the Minister. I should like also to thank him for his courtesy and willingness to listen during the passage of the Bill.
	I hope that he will accept that the Bill has been significantly improved as regards the national patients' body, care trusts and, in particular, in respect of Clause 65. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 14, as an amendment to Amendment No. 13, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, as amendments to Amendment No. 13, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 13 agreed to.
	Clause 68 [Regulations and orders]:

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 75, line 10, leave out from first "of" to "regulations" in line 11.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 74 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
	Page 77, line 25, after "(13)," insert "(Patient Information Advisory Group),"
	Page 77, line 25, after "section," insert--
	"( ) Part 3 of Schedule 5,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 95, leave out lines 3 and 4.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 95, line 38, at end insert--

"PART 3

PATIENT INFORMATION

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)

17 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (which lists bodies of which all members are disqualified for membership of the House of Commons), at the appropriate place insert--
	"The Patient Information Advisory Group".

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)

18 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public authorities for the purposes of the Act), at the appropriate place insert--
	"The Patient Information Advisory Group"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Family Law

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they will bring the provisions of the Family Law Act 1996 into force.
	My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who will be speaking today, some of whom, I know, will share my concern about the delay in implementing the Family Law Act 1996.
	In 1996 the report of a Church of England working party, Putting Asunder, was published. It recommended that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage should be the sole grounds for a divorce. The report was highly influential, but not influential enough; for the 1969 Act still retained fault as an essential sign of such irretrievable breakdown. The Family Law Act 1996, however, sought to retrieve that fundamental principle. I believe that it was right to do so. It was approved by both Houses, and it would be very sad to lose it once again at this stage.
	Before the Act came into force it was necessary for research to be carried out in connection with the information meetings and associated provisions. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor's office on initiating that extensive research and the researchers on the thoroughness of their work.
	The research tested out six models of information meeting, but a flaw that was fundamental to all of them was identified. Quite simply, it was that the proposed purposes of the information meetings and associated provisions were too varied, confused and in part contradictory. The researchers therefore proposed two alternative models, one based on a mandatory information meeting and one on a voluntary one, which, they believed, could meet the weaknesses that they had previously identified. They proposed that these models be tested.
	What is remarkable about the research results, however, is that although there was that fundamental weakness in all the models tested, nevertheless a remarkably high level of satisfaction was recorded. During the pilot programme, 9,900 married people applied to attend an information meeting and 7,863 actually attended. The report notes on page 22:
	"Attendees' first impressions of the information meeting were overwhelmingly positive. Exit questionnaires revealed that only 1% of attendees said that they had not found the meeting useful in some way".
	The same point is emphasised on pages 29 and 30.
	It was generally acknowledged in the debates on the Family Law Act that information meetings and appropriate follow-ups with marriage counsellors would save only a few marriages. Nevertheless, it was also recognised that seeing an appropriately trained person could help people considering divorce to be much clearer about what they should do. The research shows that both aims were met. The report states at page 32:
	"Although relatively few attendees of information meetings subsequently saved their marriage through counselling, there is evidence that counselling helped people to cope with the ending of their marriage".
	Between 17 and 12 per cent of people who attended an information meeting took up the offer of a meeting with a marriage counsellor, depending on the model that was used. Half of those went with the intention of saving their marriage. The report states at page 34:
	"The majority of people were positive about the meeting with a marriage counsellor, believing that it would help them move on and clarify the next steps...just under half of those who went to a meeting with a marriage counsellor made an appointment for counselling afterwards. Of those who did go to counselling, 72% indicated that it had helped them to gain a better understanding of their relationship, but only 19% said that it had helped them to save their relationship".
	The report continues at page 35:
	"It is clear that counselling helped some people to save their marriage and others to end their marriage and/or come to terms with the fact that their marriage was over".
	Research also tested out the value of a more conciliatory approach to divorce through mediation. The results here were less positive, mainly, it seems, because people did not really understand what mediation could do or its relationship to solicitors. Nevertheless, the report certainly does not rule out the value of mediation in particular circumstances and it sets out the three conditions which must be met for it to be useful.
	When it comes to information given at the meetings about children, the report states at page 49:
	"Over 80% said that the information about how children feel had been useful, 65% had found the information about making arrangements for children useful".
	The researchers concluded that none of the models tested was quite right but that a new model could be developed, learning from the pilot evaluation. The fundamental point was that the initial information meeting needed to be focused much more precisely upon the person's or couple's stated needs, whether they were trying to save their marriage, be more certain about what they should do, end their marriage more amicably, or get information about dealing with the children and so on. People come at very different stages, with different expectations, and a catch-all information session cannot provide for this. Nevertheless, the researchers put forward two possible models which they believe could do so.
	One fundamental difficulty is whether the information meeting should be mandatory, as the Act states. People who attended information meetings as part of the pilot project were equally divided on the issue. But, as the report states:
	"There was overwhelming support for the continuation of meetings at which attendance would be voluntary".
	The report does not, however, rule out the possibility of a mandatory meeting altogether. It states:
	"Although some people resent having to attend a mandatory programme, the majority appreciate the experience and get something positive from it when it has a clear focus (such as on parenting or on dispute resolution)".
	Drawing lessons from the pilot, the report concludes--I am referring to the summary of the final evaluation report--at pages 77 and 78:
	"Looking at the evidence and the information meeting pilot it is reasonable to conclude that information provision and the meeting with a marriage counsellor did and can support the principles of the Family Law Act. Some attendees have reflected carefully on the decision to divorce and some took steps to save the marriage; messages about reducing conflict and being conciliatory were understood and respected; and parents were helped to consider the needs of their children...the vast majority of those attending an information meeting described it as useful".
	The report offers two alternative models. One is based upon a mandatory information meeting, in which the people concerned, in dialogue with a trained presenter, would be helped to state whether this was an exploratory dialogue to ascertain the state of marital breakdown; whether they were certain the marriage was over but not certain how to proceed; or whether the marriage was in trouble and they were not certain what to do. Depending upon what emerged, the meeting would then have a sharp focus appropriate to the person's situation, with relevant core information, both verbal and written, with additional information being provided by a video or CD ROM relevant to where they were. The other model, based upon a voluntary meeting, would involve people receiving information and then choosing whether they wanted to have a meeting with a marriage counsellor and then go for counselling, or whether they wanted simply an information meeting following which they might go to counselling or might simply decide to proceed with a divorce.
	There is an important section in the Family Law Act on marriage support. I have deliberately not dealt with that this evening because of time factors and because my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, is in touch with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this issue.
	I believe that the fundamental principle in the Family Law Act 1996--namely, that divorce should be based upon irretrievable breakdown--is important. Furthermore, I believe that the extremely thorough research bears out, as I have shown, the value of information meetings and the associated provisions within the Family Law Act, provided that they are much more sharply focused in either one of the ways which the researchers suggest at the end of their report.
	The present system of divorce does nothing to encourage people to face up to their responsibilities. Divorce is not only about ending a marriage but about making people free to marry again if they so choose. If they have not sorted out arrangements in relation to children, property rights and so on, trouble is simply being stored up for the future. The Family Law Act, with its information meetings and associated provisions, provides the best framework for people to deal with these issues with the minimum of aggression.
	What is remarkable is that, despite the basic confusion which the researchers rightly identified, the information sessions produced a high level of satisfaction. I believe that the next stage of research needs to be initiated--the report states that piloting need not be a lengthy or complex process--and the Family Law Act implemented in the light of that research as soon as possible afterwards.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for allowing us the opportunity to examine the question of how family life is faring in 21st century Britain, with special reference to the Family Law Act 1996.
	Although I appreciate the concerns set out by the right reverend Prelate, it is surely right that unless Part II of the legislation can fulfil the principles of Part I, it should not go ahead. We know that the principles of Part I are about rescuing those marriages that can be rescued and about ensuring that children are least exposed to conflict, distress and trauma; and that civilised relationships between the two people in question beyond marriage are supported.
	As I understand it, the findings of government research into Part II were very disappointing. Very few people responded to invitations to a meeting with a marriage counsellor, and even fewer committed themselves to the process of conciliation as a vehicle for saving their marriage. In the light of such findings, it is important for the Government not to become "hung up" on the rigid question of whether the system ensures fault or no-fault divorce. Instead, they should look coolly and calmly for solutions that work, especially those that work in favour of the children of divorcing parents.
	Children and families have been at the forefront of government policy. As chair of the Women's National Commission, I certainly make my views clear to government if I believe that they are dragging their feet over any aspect of policy that could improve family life in this country. Our recent response to the DTI's maternity review is a case in point.
	But I have to say that on many aspects of family policy we are pushing at an open door with this Government. We have seen a number of significant improvements in the support given to families over the past four years. Expectant mothers have improved rights at work through a whole package of improved maternity measures. Childcare places will be created for 1.6 million children by 2004, as well as guaranteed nursery places for every four year-old who needs one. From 2003, fathers will receive paid paternity leave for two weeks for the first time ever. Mothers and fathers will have the right to take three months' parental leave in order to spend more time with young children under five--although I should like to see that leave paid for, because that would work far more effectively for low-income parents. Children and families in vulnerable areas will have access to £540 million of Sure Start programme funding; there is help for lone parents through the New Deal; and the working families' tax credit helps 1.5 million families, guaranteeing them an income of £214 a week. In addition, there is the increase in the rate of children's tax credit, from £8.50 per week to £10 per week for standard rate taxpayers from April this year. So this is not the record of a government whose cupboard is bare in terms of initiatives to promote and support family life in Britain.
	There are those who would have us believe--and I assure the right reverend Prelate that I do not include him in this category--that family life in this country is disintegrating. I refer such people to the latest figures in this area issued by the Future Foundation. The majority of households in Britain see themselves as family units. Half of the population live within half-an-hour's journey of the place where they grew up. At least 50 per cent of those with a living mother or father see them at least once a week. Seventy per cent of those asked believe that family members should stay in touch, even if they do not have much in common.
	So while it is important for us to ensure that divorcing families get the best deal possible through our legislation, we need to keep a cool head over the context in which our discussions take place.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for initiating the debate. Like all his contributions, this one was sensible and sensitive.
	My view is that we have to be realistic about what is achievable in this complex area. Not only statistics but our own experience and observations indicate that divorce is a sad and increasing factor in society today. Time does not stand still; nor should our role in government fail to respond accurately to current needs. We must be mindful not only of the need for planned legislation to be apt, but of the need for it to remain effective against a background of change and new circumstances.
	When looking at research into Part II of the Family Law Act one is driven to the conclusion that, although the measures were well intentioned, the facts as presently assessed speak for themselves. The intention was to focus on saving saveable marriages and to attempt to lessen the trauma and stress, not only to the principal parties but most crucially to the children in the family. However, research indicates that only 12 per cent of those who received an invitation to a meeting with a marriage counsellor actually turned up; and of those who did, fewer than half were determined to save their marriage. Most damning of all is the finding that only 7 per cent of those who attended information meetings subsequently took part in mediation.
	The process clearly failed, and the Government must be credited with acknowledging that and acting accordingly. It is therefore with confidence that I voice approval of the Government's strategy, which puts the needs of children at the core of the dealings with this acrimonious situation. We must never underestimate the trauma for young children in a domestic situation that is intolerably threatening. Children can be scarred and damaged for ever.
	I make no claims to be remarkable in this distinguished House--far from it. But in just one area I hazard a guess that I may be unique. I was brought up in care. I was an only child. My father was killed in the war and my mother contracted TB in the late 1940s, which in those days was almost a death sentence. My uniqueness lies in the simple fact that for four years, from five to nine years of age, I was brought up in care--fortunately in a jolly and down-to-earth family. But memories of my terror at the prospect of being alone in the world will never leave me. My story ended happily. A scientist somewhere discovered a drug called streptomycin. My mother was cured, she returned home and enjoyed a further 30 years of life.
	But for some children, traumatised in a brutal, violent divorce process, the outcome is not so happy. So I know that the Government are sound in their approach, whether in focusing on the child's opportunities in early years and on better economic conditions, or whether in providing stability and security for the child's future. The Government are right to focus their family strategy on ensuring that the next generation has the best possible start in life.
	My noble friend Lady Crawley outlined a number of initiatives: Sure Start; Parent Network; family service units; the uprating of child benefits; the introduction of the working families' tax credit; the New Deal for Lone Parents; and reform of the Child Support Agency. All these and many other measures brought into play in the past four years are helping to lay the foundations of a decent chance for children caught up in a situation over which they have no control. I am confident that this strong, compassionate approach to family life will remain the cornerstone of the Government's actions.
	In conclusion, I reiterate the fact that children must come first. That is the Government's view. This clear-sighted approach is right for today's families and today's children. It will form the basis of a better future for all of them.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has raised some very important issues in this Question. I am in entire agreement with the general principles laid down in Section 1 of the Family Law Act 1996, which are: first, that the institution of marriage is to be supported; secondly, that the parties to a marriage that may have broken down are to be encouraged to take all practicable steps, whether by marriage counselling or otherwise, to save the marriage; and, thirdly, that a marriage that has irretrievably broken down and is being brought to an end should be brought to an end with minimum distress to the parties and to the children affected. I also strongly support the right reverend Prelate in calling for the removal of "fault" as the basis for divorce and its replacement by "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage".
	I have read a number of the speeches that were made in the debate on Second Reading of the Bill, which became the Family Law Act, on 30th November 1995. It was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in a speech that demonstrated his profound religious beliefs and his commitment to the objectives of the Act. It was strongly supported by the right reverend Prelate, along with other Bishops, by the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, and the late Lord Jakobovits. From these Benches, the Bill was supported--admittedly, I think, with somewhat varying degrees of enthusiasm--by my noble friends Lord Russell and Lady Hamwee and by Lord Meston. Had I been a Member of your Lordships' House at that time, I strongly suspect that I, too, should have supported it. However, we have to accept that the pilots have been discouraging. The comments that I shall now make are mine, not those of my party: plainly, the issues involved are issues of conscience on which there is no question of there being a whipped vote.
	With a degree of hindsight, I have to say that some of the provisions of Part II of the Act seem unrealistic. Section 8 requires the party making a statement of marital breakdown to have attended an "information meeting" at least three months before making that statement. That meeting must give the party attending the meeting an opportunity to have a meeting with a marriage counsellor. Many couples go through difficulties in marriage and receive great help from counselling. I should strongly support counselling; indeed, my wife was president of the London branch of the Marriage Guidance Council for several years. But by the time a party to a marriage gets to the point of wanting to serve a statement of marital breakdown it will almost certainly be too late in all but a small proportion of marriages to save it. Therefore, many people who are required to attend an information meeting as a condition precedent to making a statement will regard the meeting as a tiresome and pointless formality.
	The right reverend Prelate proposes that there should be further pilot tests. Indeed, I realise that there is perhaps point in giving that process a further try. But it also has to be said that the pilots were carried out on a voluntary basis, and it is likely that those who are compelled to attend will be more hostile than those who have agreed to attend voluntarily.
	I am also concerned about further defects in Part II of the Act. After the three-month period between the information meeting and filing the statement, there has to be a further nine-month period for reflection and consideration under Section 7 of the Act before a divorce order can be made. This means that the divorce takes a minimum of a year from the time that one of the parties first decides to proceed with the application. I do not believe that that reflects modern habits. In past years, there was a strong social pressure against cohabitation without marriage. If one of the parties to a marriage had formed a relationship with a new partner, he or she wanted a quick remarriage to legitimise that relationship and, indeed, to legitimise any possible children of it.
	However, now that there is little or no stigma in cohabitation, divorce may not be sought for some years after the marriage has broken down--and, perhaps, not until after both parties have formed long-term, new relationships. In such a case, the requirement for the divorce process to take a minimum of a year seems to me to be pointless and likely to increase distress.
	Finally, there is the question of mediation. I regard this as a welcome provision of the Act because there is no doubt that it can greatly reduce the cost and stress of resolving disputes over property and children. But it will work only if both parties are willing to participate. Section 13 of the Act enables the court to order a party to attend a meeting, even if he or she is unwilling to do so at that point. That is not necessarily unreasonable because a good many people misunderstand the purpose of mediation and may be persuaded by a meeting with a mediator to accept it. Many people confuse mediation and counselling. Mediation is no doubt particularly desirable in cases that involve children.
	It is important that mediation should not be carried out on the cheap. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in the debate to which I referred earlier,
	"fair arrangements ... depend on skilled legal advice and representation.".--[Official Report, 30/11/95; col. 708.]
	As the noble and learned Lord has since become the hammer of legal aid, I wonder whether he would be willing to guarantee the provision of funds from the Community Legal Service to enable mediation to be effective.
	The research report to which the right reverend Prelate referred suggested that only 10 per cent of the couples in the pilot scheme actually went to full-scale mediation, and that 37 per cent of those settled the issues through that mediation. This indicates that, in fact, the overall success rate was a little under 4 per cent, which is disappointing. Nevertheless, it would be regrettable if the option for mediation in some form or another--and, indeed, the availability of financial support for it--was not made available in any future legislation on the subject.
	There is no doubt that the existing law, which dates from 1969, needs revision. As I have already said, it is long past the time to remove "fault" as the basis for divorce and replace it by "irretrievable breakdown". In a little more detail, the need for a five-year separation as a ground for divorce where one party objects to the divorce certainly seems to me to be unjustifiable and to give an opportunity to the non-consenting spouse to blackmail the other spouse.
	I should just like to raise a short point that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill would have made had he spoken in tonight's debate. There is a particular problem with Jewish marriages, which was raised by Lord Jakobovits in the Second Reading debate of the Act and, indeed, raised again by my noble friend in a Private Member's Bill during the previous Session. I believe that the noble and learned Lord is sympathetic to the problem. When there is a review of divorce law, I hope that that can be dealt with at that stage.
	I have to say--I regret not to be able to concur entirely with what the right reverend Prelate said, although I agree with him in many respects--that I am not convinced that Part II of the Act as it now stands is the way forward. But we unquestionably need to move on from the position in 1969. We need a further family law Act to bring divorce up to date. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can offer us any prospect of doing so.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for raising this important issue. I join him in looking to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to tell us the Government's intention with regard to any new legislation that may be brought forward to repeal this Act.
	I start by asking when that will happen. I suggest that, given recent announcements by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which I shall return, and to which I think we can all assume that the noble and learned Lord will allude in his response, my question may be otiose.
	There is considerable evidence to suggest a fundamental decline in the traditional British family way of life. The number of marriages is declining every year, with 62 per cent in 1999 being conducted as civil ceremonies. Cohabitation comprises 70 per cent of first partnerships, with an increase in the number of women having children within such unofficial unions. Some 22 per cent of children were born to cohabiting couples in 1997, compared with 2 per cent in 1977. The number of lone parent families has increased dramatically from 570,000 in 1971 to 1,900,000 in 1999. In 1999, 144,600 divorces were recorded, representing a rate of 12.9 per cent of people divorcing per 1,000 of married population. Britain has the highest divorce rate in the European Union and the marriages of those previously married are more likely to end in divorce than are first-time marriages.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may refer to a report recently published by his department which confirms that,
	"Fewer people are getting married than at any time in the past 40 years. These trends have caused considerable social concern motivating the previous government to put forward its proposals for divorce reform, in the firm belief that the current system does little to support marriage in trouble or to minimise the risks, particularly to children, when couples split up.
	There exists a great deal of uncertainty about what role law should play in family relations. It is generally agreed that the law cannot create happy, stable marriages or sustain unhappy ones, but it is expected that it should create a framework and appropriate processes which buttress and support family relationships in a variety of ways".
	As has already been said, the aim of the 1996 Act was to meet the twin objectives of saving saveable marriages and promoting a conciliatory approach to divorce, if divorce is the only option. It represented a watershed in divorce legislation, acknowledging divorce as a process rather than a finite event. Part I of the 1996 Act covers general principles. Part III covers mediation and legal aid and Part IV covers domestic violence.
	Those parts have all been implemented and with some considerable success. For example, reforms introduced by Part IV, including the mandatory attachment of a power of arrest in the face of a threat of violence, as opposed to having to demonstrate that the applicant has suffered actual bodily harm, are much welcomed.
	In addition, those measures set out in Schedule 6 relating to amendments to the Children Act 1989, which introduce the power to include an exclusion requirement in an interim care order and the power to include an exclusion in an emergency protection order, have wide support. Also, the recent legislation concerning the division of pension rights has been warmly welcomed by those who practise in the field.
	Part II, as your Lordships know, has not been implemented. Part II contains arrangements for information meetings, on the principle that parties to a divorce should be given quality, objective and factual information at an early stage. It provided for a preliminary cooling off period of three months after an information meeting, during which there could be no divorce proceedings. It also provided for an extension to that period of six months and required that the parties' financial arrangements should be finalised in advance. Pursuant to Part II of the Act, divorce could be granted only when all the financial arrangements had been finalised and were in place.
	As has already been said, implementation of Part II was delayed pending the results of pilot schemes carried out between June 1997 and May 1999. The provisions which the pilot schemes were designed to test were the following. A party making a statement of marital breakdown must (except in prescribed circumstances) have attended an information meeting not less than three months beforehand; and those attending an information meeting should be encouraged to have a meeting with a marriage counsellor which, it was proposed, should be free for those eligible for non-contributory legal aid.
	The pilot schemes examined different models of information meetings and meetings with the marriage counsellors. The aim was to direct a person's attention to the issues which should be considered when contemplating steps to end the marriage and to provide information on the various options for the resolution of difficulties, including the availability of marriage support services, mediation and legal services. It had also been hoped that the schemes might help to save perhaps not many but a number of marriages.
	In summary, the results of the pilots showed that almost half of those who went to counselling attended alone, primarily, it seems, because their partner was unwilling to participate. The evidence suggested that counselling which follows an information meeting was of limited success in saving marriages and that the predictions of 5 per cent suggested in Parliament during the passage of the Family Law Act seem to have been a realistic target.
	Sadly, by the time most people went to an information meeting it was too late for them to save their marriage. If the objective of providing information is to facilitate marriage saving, the evidence suggested that it would be more effective if it was provided while spouses were still together and before they made a decision to live apart. However--I believe that this point is crucial--although relatively few attendees at information meetings subsequently saved their marriage through counselling, there was evidence that counselling helped people to cope--I believe that the word "cope" is important--with the ending of their marriage.
	In February 1998 the Lord Chancellor's Department decided that it would test the provision of the meeting with a marriage counsellor and that that should be evaluated as part of the research programme. In summary, the meetings with marriage counsellors seemed to be particularly helpful to those who were uncertain about their marriage and had attended an information meeting not knowing where to turn. We should remember that many people in this situation suffer tremendous isolation and the meetings offer a possibility for communication. Some attendees felt that the one-off intervention of the meeting was enough to help them to work on their marriage without the need for further counselling. Others saw the meeting as a gateway to the counselling process as it dispelled preconceived ideas about counselling and enabled them to view it as a positive intervention in helping to restore their marriage.
	It was hoped that the Family Law Act 1996 would help to encourage more conciliatory divorce, placing increased emphasis on providing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, which promote private ordering and consensual decision-making.
	The pilot schemes were not set up specifically to divert people into family mediation, but there were expectations that the delivery of information would encourage greater numbers of people to use it. Those who went to mediation did not always find that it was successful, particularly if both parties were not working towards similar goals. The research concluded that in essence many factors need to be in place before mediation works successfully.
	Following consideration by the Government of the results of the research, the final report on the pilot schemes was published by the Lord Chancellor's Department earlier this year. It concluded that none of the models tested should be implemented, but recommended--as has already been said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford--that several positive findings from the pilots could be incorporated into a new model.
	For example, there was overwhelming support for the continuation of meetings at which attendance would be voluntary. The report also stated that information meetings had a lot to offer and that attendance at an information meeting led to increased knowledge about marriage support and the options available.
	However, the report also stated,
	"What emerged strongly in the pilots across all the models was the stark reality that a standardised 'one size fits all' approach to the provision of information will be much less effective than a model of information provision which is designed with an element of flexibility, and which allows for some personal tailoring in the content of the information to be delivered by a presenter".
	Such a conclusion seems somewhat predictable given that no one person's experience and needs will be the same as another.
	Turning to the present, it is unclear whether the Government intend to reintroduce the principles behind Part II, albeit with a different approach, to reflect the positive findings of the pilot schemes, or whether they are minded to abandon its aims altogether. The government press release issued on 16th January 2001, wherein the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirmed that he would be asking Parliament to repeal Part II of the Family Law Act 1996, did not, with respect, make clear the intention of the noble and learned Lord.
	Do the Government intend to reintroduce the principles behind Part II, albeit with a different approach, to reflect the positive findings in the research; or do they propose to abandon its aims altogether? I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will make clear the Government's intentions. There is considerable disappointment among many who believe that Part II should be implemented, certainly in principle, while others, including the Solicitors Family Law Association, although supporting moves towards no-fault divorce, said that,
	"all those who have struggled to understand how it was supposed to work will be pleased to see the back of it".
	In contrast, the Family Law Consortium stated that,
	"this U-turn arrives from out of the blue and will be an enormous disappointment to those who support the development of an environment in which there are constructive resolutions to the problems of separation and the Government has not yet given mediation a chance to work".
	Sara Robinson, a member of a London-based firm, said:
	"The Act has much public support and the support of the vast majority of professionals working with families involved in family breakdown. It provides a formal structure for a way of helping clients and families that our practice shows can and does work".
	David Hodson, a solicitor and mediator with the Family Law Consortium, said that,
	"the new system would have put the process of divorce firmly where it belongs"--
	and I think that this is well put--
	"in the hands of the married couple rather than in the hands of the lawyers".
	He went on to say that this is a wasted opportunity.
	Only yesterday I had the benefit of a long conversation with a senior member of the Family Bar with the benefit of 20 years' experience in the field who is also a board member of the Family Mediators Association. He said:
	"Looking at the balance of the Act, I, for one, see great advantage in the statement of marital breakdown. It eliminates the business of fault finding, which rarely achieves much and, in certain cases, can be the cause of tremendous resentment".
	He went on to say that those sections of the Act which deal with information meetings and arrangements for the future seem to be sensible and eminently achievable. Parties should settle their financial affairs and the arrangements for the children before they are entitled to a divorce order. I think that it is fair to say that that happens generally in good practice at the moment.
	It is also right to say that there is a view among practitioners that some of the confusion and misgivings about Part II arise because of unclear and thereby unsatisfactory drafting of the Act. For example, there seems to be a misconception that the legislation, if implemented, would force parties down the mediation route and into an unsatisfactory negotiated settlement, particularly in relation to financial aspects. Section 13, which relates to the resolution of disputes, is in fact couched throughout in the permissive not the mandatory. However, Section 29, relating to mediation and legal aid, is couched in the mandatory. That is a problem.
	It is also felt by some that Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Act relating to a period for reflection and consideration are quite meaningless provisions. What is it thought that the parties are otherwise doing? Are they positively looking forward to the date when they can obtain the divorce order, ignoring their financial arrangements and responsibilities towards the children? I think not.
	It quickly becomes clear that whatever our own personal view with regard to the way forward, we must legislate with extreme care. On balance, there is much to be said in favour of supporting the implementation of Part II subject to the various caveats which I have just raised. That said, translating good practice and common sense into legislative provisions does not always work. I therefore join other noble Lords who have spoken this evening in looking forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether it is the Government's intention to bring forward Part II in a new, much improved and thereby workable format which implements the principles of Part I, or to scrap it altogether.
	I close by making a brief reference to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham. She rightly referred to the priority of the children. I entirely agree with her that the interests of the children should be paramount. Section 11(3) of the 1996 Act states:
	"In deciding whether the circumstances are as mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the court shall treat the welfare of the child as paramount".
	That is already stated clearly in Part II of the Act.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, some of your Lordships may have been a little puzzled by the terms of this Question for two reasons: first, because I announced on 16th January by a parliamentary Answer that the Government were not satisfied that it would be right to proceed with the implementation of Part II and that we would invite Parliament to repeal the relevant sections once a suitable opportunity arose; and, secondly, because we have already brought many of the provisions of the Act into force. We have implemented Part I which establishes the principles underlying the Act; Section 22 in Part II which gives me the power to make grants to marriage support services; Part III which enables public funding to be made available for mediation--perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that this has now been incorporated into the Legal Services Commission funding code so that funding is available for mediation; and Part IV (with the exception of Section 60) which improves and strengthens the law relating to domestic violence, which I was pleased to hear was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. All of these provisions will remain in force and are unaffected by my decision not to implement Part II. None the less, I am grateful for the opportunity the Question has provided to debate these issues.
	The family is the bedrock of a strong society in which children can grow up to fulfil their potential. We are firmly committed to supporting marriage and stable relationships and to save marriages wherever possible. Unavoidably, some marriages break down. When they do, we must enable families to receive the advice, support and information they need to help them make arrangements for the future with the minimum of acrimony and in a way which safeguards the welfare of their children.
	These objectives are in Part I of the Act, and we are committed to them. However, as I explained to the House in January, the Government do not believe that Part II would have met these objectives. This view is shared by among others the President of the Family Division, the Senior District Judge, the Law Society the Solicitors Family Law Association and the Family Law Bar Association; and we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, many of his criticisms well articulated.
	Unfortunately, Part II is drafted in such a way that it must be implemented as a whole. It is not an a la carte menu but table d'hote: you take it all or not at all. I have to confess that the decision I had to make was not an easy one. However, the research on the information meeting pilots showed that the meetings were not effective in helping most people save their marriages. They came too late; they did not provide people with information tailored to their personal circumstances, as has already been mentioned; they tried to achieve the incompatible objectives of saving marriages and informing people about divorce; and they failed to secure the involvement of both parties.
	Also, the delay and complexity of the procedures in Part II, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred, would have meant families undergoing a protracted period of uncertainty before the arrangements for the future could be resolved and the marriage ended. Anyone wanting a divorce would first have had to attend an information meeting, whether they wanted it or not, and then would have had to wait three months following the meeting before the statement of marital breakdown could be filed with the court, then 14 days for the other party to be informed, then nine months for reflection and consideration before the divorce order could be made, and six months on top of that if there were children or if the other party asked for further time to reflect.
	Those are just the statutory minimum periods. In reality, a divorce would have been likely to have taken at least 15 months if the couple did not have children and 21 months if they did, and it could have taken much longer. Those delays could have added to the stress experienced by parting couples and might well have increased acrimony. Prolonged uncertainty and lack of settled arrangements would not have been in the best interests of the children.
	There are strong views that divorce must continue to be fault-related to mark responsibility for marriage failure and equally strong views on the other side that divorce should not be fault-related because irretrievable marriage breakdown is a fact and the truth is more complex than that one party was to blame and the other not.
	Fewer than 10 per cent of divorce cases are fought out through the courts. The majority are uncontested and dealt with on paper. My Ministers and I receive voluminous correspondence on the broadest range of legal subjects, but we receive no letters at all from the public asking for changes in the grounds of divorce. The focus should be not on dogma, either way, but on the principles set out in Part I of the Family Law Act.
	Preventing petitioners for divorce from alleging fault against their spouse would not influence the way in which the parties conducted themselves during the divorce process, nor are the fault grounds for the proceedings any cause in practice for acrimony in divorce. There will have been acrimony in plenty before the proceedings started. The current system is sometimes described as though it involved courtroom battles in which the parties were obliged to make ever more outrageous allegations against each other in order to obtain a divorce. That is not true. In the very small number of cases that are fought, this is probably because of the bitterness and unhappiness that had built up before proceedings were begun.
	It is much more important to have family policy focused on practical measures that help families and improve the lives of children. I have increased funding to marriage and relationship support organisations to £4.5 million in 2001-02 and £5 million in 2002-03 and have established an advisory group on marriage and relationship support to develop a new strategy and to advise on how the funding should be spent. Improved ancillary relief procedures were implemented in June 2000 and pension sharing in December. There will be consultation and piloting of procedural changes to improve the consideration given by the courts under the current law to the arrangements made by parents for their children following divorce.
	We have recently announced plans to pilot family advice and information networks from October 2001. The networks will act as the first port of call for people seeking advice and information on family problems and disputes. They will provide families with or refer them to a range of co-ordinated services, including legal advice, information, marriage counselling, contact centres and family therapy--whatever meets their individual needs.
	One of the services available through the networks will be family mediation. Some in the media presented my decision not to implement Part II as signalling a withdrawal of support for mediation. That is not so. The research on family mediation published by the Legal Services Commission in December 2000 indicated that, while it is likely to remain a minority choice, mediation has a valuable role to play in resolving some family disputes.
	Relationship breakdown and the fate of the children involved can be part of a cycle of social exclusion, debt, unemployment, poor housing and child poverty. The Government are committed to ending child poverty in 20 years and halving it in 10. We are working across Whitehall on initiatives such as Sure Start and the Children Fund to ensure that we help families in greatest need and mobilise the resources available in local authorities and community-based groups, as well as central government.
	We have created the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service--CAFCASS--which will provide a child-focused service that will serve children better and will ensure that their views and interests are made known to the courts when decisions are made on issues relating to their welfare and upbringing. Financial support has also been given to the National Association of Child Contact Centres. Contact centres are an increasingly important part of the process of enabling children and their parents to make the practical arrangements necessary on divorce.
	I welcome the initiative of the right reverend Prelate in raising the issue today. As he said, I have also benefited recently from a most useful discussion with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I acknowledge that the Church has a vital role to play in this area.
	Part II of the 1996 Act would not have given families the help that they need. It was not the answer. It would have made matters worse. Our new focus and these initiatives will be more effective in helping to support families and improve the lives of children.

House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.